threads_remove_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned payload `{removed, thread_id, user_id}` and the user-removal semantics, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact and uses clear labels (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Returns). Every line adds either purpose, usage guidance, or return structure, with no filler.

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 two-parameter membership-removal tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and return shape. The output schema exists and annotations cover mutability/idempotency, so no major contextual gaps remain.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('User to remove', 'Thread to remove from'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra param insight beyond referencing the fields in the return shape, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Remove a guild user from a thread.' It distinguishes from the sibling `threads_leave` by explicitly noting that tool is for bot removal, making the tool's specific scope obvious.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios ('Drop a user out of a private thread; thread cleanup'). The 'When NOT to use' section explicitly names the alternative `threads_leave` for bot removal, providing a clear decision point.

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