unshare_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey the core mutation and the owner permission. However, it does not disclose potential consequences such as whether the friend loses immediate access, whether the operation is reversible, or how non-owner callers are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, target, and permission constraint with zero wasted words. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what to remove, from where, and under what condition. It omits only marginal details like error behavior or return value, which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 the schema already clearly documents projectId and friendUserId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'friend' and 'shared project', which is enough to avoid ambiguity but does not exceed the baseline.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Remove'), a specific resource ('a friend from a shared project'), and an explicit ownership restriction ('owner only'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling share_project and other friend-related operations.

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 'owner only' constraint gives clear guidance on who may invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but for this operation the usage context is well implied by 'Remove a friend from a shared project'.

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