teamleader_projects_remove_owner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior on failure (e.g., if the user is not an owner). For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified given the lack of supplemental information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

For a simple tool with two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It states the core operation. However, it lacks any guidance on usage, error handling, or prerequisites, making it incomplete in a broader context. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only provides parameter names ('id', 'user_id') without any descriptions. The description hints that 'user_id' refers to the owner (user) and 'id' likely refers to the project, but it does not explicitly map these parameters or clarify their formats, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Remove an owner (user) from a nextgen project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name itself (teamleader_projects_remove_owner) aligns perfectly. It distinguishes from siblings like add_owner and unassign by specifying 'owner'.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like teamleader_projects_unassign, teamleader_projects_remove_customer, and teamleader_projects_add_owner, the agent gets no hint about when removing an owner is appropriate or how it differs from similar operations. Usage context is only implied by the name.

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