remove_admin_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the user keeps access to assigned projects but loses account-wide admin access, which is the key side effect an agent needs to predict.

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 first two sentences restate the same operation ('Revoke user admin privileges' / 'Revoke a user's admin privileges using its unique identifier'), which is wasted space. The third sentence, however, is substantive and front-loaded well enough.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect on the target user adequately. It omits prerequisites, failure modes (e.g., user not an admin), and any note on reversibility beyond the residual-access statement.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents userId as 'The user identifier.' The description's phrase 'using its unique identifier' merely restates that without adding format, source, or lookup guidance.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Revoke user admin privileges' names the exact mutation and the entity. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling make_admin_user, so an agent must infer the inverse relationship from the names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the target must currently be an admin), and no routing to or away from alternatives such as make_admin_user or delete_user. The agent must infer the context of use entirely.

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