collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove

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

With no annotations, the description adds that it's a write operation and requires confirmation. However, it lacks details on success response, error conditions, or side effects beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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?

Two short, clear sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second adds key usage context. Perfectly sized for the information provided.

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 removal tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not cover return value, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., user must be a collaborator).

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only adds meaning to the 'confirmed' parameter (requires true). The 'repo' and 'username' parameters are not explained beyond their schema definitions.

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 a user's direct access to a repo' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like collaboration_repo_collaborator_set (sets permissions) and collaboration_repo_collaborators (lists).

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?

It specifies it's a write operation requiring confirmed=true, giving clear context for when to use. It implicitly contrasts with read tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives like invitations.

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