remove_users_from_audience

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool mutates the audience by removing people and adds an important operational detail: hashing rules match `add_users_to_audience`. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or what happens when no users match, leaving some 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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core operation is front-loaded, and the hashing-rule reference is a useful, compact addition.

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 description is not sufficiently complete for a mutation tool with three required parameters and no annotations. It lacks parameter-level guidance and relies on external knowledge via `add_users_to_audience`. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input contract remains underspecified.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of `schema`, `values`, or `audience_id`. The reference to hashing rules hints at how values should be prepared, but the crucial `schema` parameter is left unexplained, making it hard for an agent to construct a valid invocation.

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 ('Retire des personnes') and the resource ('audience personnalisée'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The operation is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like `add_users_to_audience` and `delete_custom_audience`, even if not explicitly contrasted.

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 implies when this should be used: to remove users from a custom audience, likely as the inverse of `add_users_to_audience`. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so the guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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