Remove competition participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires a verification code, implying mutation. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what happens to competition standings, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence. It conveys the essential action and a key requirement. However, it could be slightly improved by specifying that it can remove multiple participants (array), but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not specify the number of participants that can be removed at once, error scenarios (e.g., nonexistent participant), or the return value. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage (id and verificationCode described). The description adds semantic value by clarifying that participants are targeted 'by username', which is not fully explained in the schema for the participants array.

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 ('Removes participants'), the resource ('from a competition'), and the method ('by username'). It also mentions a prerequisite ('verification code'). This distinguishes it from siblings like wom_add_competition_participants and wom_remove_competition_teams.

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 mentions the requirement of a verification code, which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for removing teams instead), nor does it state when not to use it.

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