remove_user_from_channel

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing permissions, reversibility, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness.

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 operation with a fully specified schema, the description sets the basic expectation. However, it omits contextual details such as permission requirements, whether the user must be a current member, or the expected response. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters (user_id and channel_id) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('removes') and identifies the resource ('user from a channel'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like quit_channel (which likely removes the calling user) and remove_channel_moderator (which targets a different role). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being a channel admin), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove self), or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent receives no contextual decision support.

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