infomaniak_remove_account_team_users

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

Annotations already declare destructive behavior and non-idempotency. The description adds valuable context with 'Two-phase commit with a fresh team-members snapshot guard,' which goes beyond annotations and hints at a confirmation step and concurrency guard. However, it does not elaborate on the exact mechanics or failure modes, so it is not a full disclosure.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes a necessary behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 operation with confirmation and a snapshot guard, the description is somewhat cryptic. It does not explain the two-phase commit flow, what the snapshot guard protects against, or how confirmation_token should be obtained. While annotations and output schema offset some gaps, the description leaves important operational details unexplained, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description does not explicitly explain parameters, but the two-phase commit hint relates to the confirmation_token. Since the schema already covers most parameters, the description adds only marginal semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 one or more users from an account team.' This uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('account team'), and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like add/update/delete account team users.

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 (when you need to remove users), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as the sibling 'infomaniak_add_account_team_users' or other team management tools. It is sufficient to understand the basic context but lacks exclusionary or alternative guidance.

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