Teams: Remove an Agent from Team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real context: the auth mechanism (header `api-access-token`), the escape hatch via extra_body, and the note that Persian/Arabic-Indic text and digits are passed through unchanged. It restates destruction rather than adding to it, and never mentions idempotency, which is disclosed only in annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and endpoint, then layers auth, body, destructiveness and text-encoding notes in a tight block. The Persian/Arabic-Indic digits sentence is somewhat tangential to a removal call but is a single line and arguably useful for the user_ids parameter.

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?

With a fully described schema, four annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining essentials: endpoint, auth, body shape, and destructiveness. It stops short of disclosing response shape or what happens on partial or invalid user_ids, which is a minor residual gap.

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% and all four parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the required/optional split for user_ids and the extra_body merge behavior, which the schema already explains for extra_body.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove agents from a team') and backs it with the exact HTTP method and route (DELETE /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/teams/{team_id}/team_members). An agent can distinguish this from gapify_add_team_agents, gapify_update_team_agents, and gapify_list_team_agents without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the destructive delete semantics and the 'Remove agents from a team' phrasing. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this over gapify_update_team_agents or gapify_remove_agent, and no prerequisites beyond the auth line.

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