collaboration_team_repo_remove

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

The description states 'Write operation,' indicating mutation, but omits key behavioral traits such as reversibility, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 sentences provide the essential purpose and a key usage condition. No extraneous words; the description is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is too terse for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, error states, permissions, or relationships with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 the description must add meaning. It only explains the 'confirmed' parameter (requires true), leaving org, teamSlug, and repo without additional context. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no patterns or constraints are described beyond the schema definition.

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 'Remove a team's access to a repo,' specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like collaboration_team_repo_set (which presumably adds access).

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 mentions 'requires confirmed=true,' providing a necessary condition for the operation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove (which removes a user). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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