remove_channel_members

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool refuses removals that would leave the channel with zero members or no owner, and that it only works on non-archived channels. This adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Highly 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?

Covers key constraints (non-archived, refusal conditions) and member identification. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Could mention behavior for non-existent members or channel existence, but overall sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description describes member formats (UUID, email, display name) which mostly duplicates the schema. It adds the 'non-archived' constraint but that is behavioral, not parameter-specific. No significant new parameter insight.

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 the tool removes members from a non-archived Huly channel, specifying the verb 'remove' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_channel_members' and 'list_channel_members' by its action and constraints.

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?

It provides context on when to use (non-archived channels) and what the tool refuses (leaving zero members or no owner). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which would elevate the score.

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