remove_participant

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: permission requirements, the owner-immutability rule, the self-removal side effect of deleting the conversation, and the refusal condition. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent must know before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, all in tight sentences. The trailing 'Returns: Confirmation message.' is redundant given the output schema exists, a minor waste rather than a real problem.

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 destructive, permission-gated mutation with an output schema and two params, the description covers permissions, edge cases, and the sibling to use for role changes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 carry the load, and it does: token is identified as the conversation token and attendee_id as the participant's attendee ID sourced from get_participants. It adds provenance value beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of format/edge-case detail.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Remove someone from a conversation.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from add_participant and leave_conversation by clarifying the self-removal case as 'leaving'. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicit preconditions and routing: 'Needs moderator rights; owners cannot be removed' and the directive to call set_participant_role first. It also states when self-removal is refused (last moderator) and what it does instead (deletes an otherwise-empty conversation).

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