remove_circle_member

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: moderator permission is required, the owner cannot be removed, and a confirmation with the removed member id is returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not elaborate on idempotent behavior or error cases when the member is already 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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by permission and constraints, then parameter semantics and return value. Every sentence adds functional value, with no filler or repetition of schema structure.

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 the tool's simple two-parameter signature, the description covers all essential invocation details: required parameters, the correct source for member_id, permission level, the owner limitation, and the return confirmation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return shape in more detail.

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 has no descriptions for either parameter, so the description carries a critical burden. It clarifies that member_id must be 'The id from list_circle_members (not the userId)', which is essential to avoid passing the wrong identifier. circle_id is only described as a string circle id, adding little beyond the schema, but the member_id clarification compensates for the main ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Kick a member out of a circle', which clearly identifies the operation and its object. It also distinguishes this from related siblings by clarifying it is a removal action with moderator requirements, and it explicitly contrasts with circle membership operations rather than circle deletion or leaving a circle.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: kicking a member out of a circle, with the prerequisite 'Requires moderator+'. It also provides an exclusion, 'Cannot remove the owner', and points to list_circle_members as the source for the correct member_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as leave_circle, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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