remove_hiring_team_member

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and, importantly, that the removal spans every hiring-team role the user holds on the job. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and error behavior, but the scope disclosure is the most decision-relevant trait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded: the operation and its scope come first, followed by the ID-sourcing guidance. The lookup instructions add length but each sentence is actionable, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. For a simple removal tool this is nearly complete; only auth/permission context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by naming the tools that produce each ID (list_jobs, list_users, get_hiring_team). This resolves ambiguity about where job_id and user_id come from.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (hiring team member on a job), and clarifies the exact scope: the user is removed from every hiring-team role on that job. This clearly distinguishes it from add_hiring_team_members, replace_hiring_team, and get_hiring_team.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete lookup workflows for both required IDs (list_jobs for job_id, list_users or get_hiring_team for user_id), which tells the agent how to satisfy prerequisites. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over replace_hiring_team or add_hiring_team_members.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.