base_wework_remove_project_userRemove one or multiple members from a project to manage participant lists and revoke access.
Xóa một hoặc nhiều thành viên ra khỏi dự án.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| users | Yes | ||
| username | No | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| remove_assign | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so this description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes members, but says nothing about whether related assignments are removed, irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though the same brevity contributes to under-specification of parameters.
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?
This tool has 5 parameters, no annotation support, and no parameter documentation, yet the description only covers the high-level operation. An agent cannot infer which ID is the project, how users are identified, or what remove_assign means, so it is incomplete for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does not. No parameter is explained, and the phrase 'một hoặc nhiều thành viên' merely repeats the anyOf string/array type already in the schema. id, users, username, access_token, and remove_assign all remain opaque.
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 'Xóa một hoặc nhiều thành viên ra khỏi dự án' has a specific verb (remove), resource (project members), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools that add, set, or exchange project members.
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 usage context is implied by the wording, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., remove_department, remove_project_member) or mention conditions like required owner permissions. It offers no when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.