remove_user_from_referral_code

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: atomicity, non-idempotency (with safe retry mapping), authentication method, and the dry-run/confirm pattern. This exceeds expectations for transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with purpose, then details atomicity, authentication, error handling, and workflow. Each sentence adds unique value without 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?

Covers authentication, error handling, workflow, and atomicity. However, it does not describe the success response format (e.g., what a successful removal returns), which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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?

While schema coverage is 63%, the description adds significant context by explaining the dry_run/confirmed workflow and providing a comprehensive example. It also clarifies the project_api_key fallback behavior. The example illustrates all parameters in context, compensating for missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action ('Remove a user from a referral code') and details the atomic database operations (deletes user_referrers and referral_code_uses, decrements actual_uses). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_user_referrer' by specifying the exact endpoint and behavior.

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?

Provides clear instructions on when to use the tool, including authentication requirements (only project API key, not OAuth) and the dry-run-then-confirm workflow. It also explains error handling for 422 cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'swap_user_referral_code'.

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