iam_team_remove_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive action ('Remove') and two important constraints (non-leader mailbox, granted permission). However, it does not describe side effects, irreversibility, or what happens when the permission is absent.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence with no filler. The action, target, restriction, and permission requirement are all front-loaded and immediately usable.

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 tool with an output schema, the description provides the core action, the member restriction, and the permission prerequisite. Missing details like identifier formats and post-removal effects are minor gaps rather than critical omissions.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does clarify that 'member' is a non-leader mailbox and 'team' is the leader's team. However, it does not specify identifier formats, such as whether team and member expect names, IDs, or email addresses, so it only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a non-leader mailbox from this leader's team.' It also defines a clear condition ('when team.manage_members was granted'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like iam_team_add_member without ambiguity.

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 an explicit usage condition: this tool should be used only when team.manage_members was granted and only for non-leader mailboxes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clearly communicated.

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