n8n_remove_user_from_project

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint: true, which covers the safety profile. The description states the action but adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as whether removal is irreversible, whether it cascades to roles, or whether it is idempotent. It does not contradict the annotations, so it is acceptable but minimal.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and both key resources. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation, though it essentially restates the tool name without adding extra context.

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?

The tool is simple: two required string parameters and no output schema, and the destructive nature is already captured in annotations. However, for a destructive membership operation, the description could note whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the user's project roles. The core invocation is specified well enough, but some operational context is missing.

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%: both userId and projectId have descriptions in the input schema, so the structured schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema already handles that documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and names both resources (user, project), so the core operation is clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like n8n_add_user_to_project and n8n_change_user_project_role, though it does not explicitly clarify that this only removes project membership and does not delete the user account. Overall the primary purpose is clear and unambiguous enough for selection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as n8n_change_user_project_role or n8n_delete_user. It also does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or consequences like whether the removal is permanent or whether certain users cannot be removed. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the brief description.

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