collaboration_team_membership_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that the 'confirmed' parameter must be true. However, it does not mention potential destructive side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what happens to the user's roles or repos upon removal.

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 concise (two sentences), with no unnecessary words. It clearly separates the core action from a critical condition. While it could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for conditions), it does not waste space.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the function's return value, error conditions, or behavior when 'confirmed' is false. An agent would need additional knowledge to use this tool safely.

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%, placing high burden on the description. The description only adds meaning for the 'confirmed' parameter ('requires confirmed=true'). The required parameters 'org', 'teamSlug', and 'username' are not explained beyond their names, leaving the agent without context on expected values.

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 from an organization team'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like collaboration_team_membership_set (which adds/sets membership) and collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove (which removes repo collaborators).

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 includes a key prerequisite: 'requires confirmed=true', indicating when the tool is valid to use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., when to use this vs. other membership removal options) or mention contexts where it should not be used.

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