cor_remove_team_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if the operation is destructive (removal), irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. Only states the action itself.

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 description is very brief (2 lines plus Args) but lacks structured information. It is front-loaded with the action, but could be organized better by including behavioral notes or a return type mention.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description omits important context such as return value (output schema exists but not described), whether removal is immediate, or any side effects. More complete than nothing, but insufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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%. The description lists parameters (team_id, user_ids) but adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic types and titles. For example, it does not explain what 'user_ids' refers to (e.g., IDs from list_users) or any format constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove users from a team') and lists the required arguments. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cor_add_team_users, which adds users instead.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where removal is not appropriate. The sibling cor_add_team_users exists but no comparison is provided.

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