remove_user_from_project

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

With no annotations, the description adds one behavioral note ('the user keeps their instance account'), but omits other relevant details like permissions required, reversibility, or impact on associated resources.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 has 2 required parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It clarifies the non-destructive nature (user keeps account), but could be more complete by addressing prerequisites or side effects.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema ('Project ID', 'User ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Remove a user from a project') and includes a clarifying parenthetical that the user keeps their instance account, distinguishing it from user deletion. The verb and resource are specific.

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 description implies usage (removing a user from a project without deleting them) but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among sibling tools like 'add_user_to_project' or 'delete_user'.

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