remove_participant

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

The description indicates a destructive action ('Remove'), which aligns with the destructiveHint: true annotation. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide, such as side effects or required permissions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple removal tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what it does and the required parameters. It lacks details on return behavior, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: 'chat_guid' is identified as the group chat GUID, and 'address' is specified as phone number or email. The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well.

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 a participant') and the target resource ('from a group chat'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'add_participant' and other chat-related tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., being a group admin) or when not to use it.

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