kick_user_from_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'kick' implies a destructive action, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, whether notifications are sent, or what happens to the user's data/access. For a potentially sensitive team management operation, this leaves significant 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, clear sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 team management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'kick' entails operationally, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity and potential impact of removing team members, more context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (teamId and userId). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('kick') and target resource ('a user from your team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'block_user' or 'decline_join_request' that might also affect team membership, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'block_user', 'decline_join_request', and 'leave_team' available, there's no indication of whether this is for removing existing members versus preventing new joins, or what permissions are required.

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