Remove Teams Channel Member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds scope constraints (direct, private) but does not mention side effects (permanent removal), required permissions, failure conditions, or any special member ownership considerations. This is insufficient for a mutating action.

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 English sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. The Chinese intent examples add length but serve multilingual fallback; they are not essential but not overly verbose either. Overall, the description is efficiently written.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the key scope (private channel, direct member) but misses behavioral context such as reversibility and permissions. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and the specific resource ('direct member from a private Teams channel'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_remove_team_member or teams_add_channel_member. The scope is precise: direct membership and private channels only.

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 usage context by specifying 'direct member' and 'private channel', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., teams_remove_team_member for team-level membership). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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