Remove team account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side-effect—the account is reassigned to the default team, not deleted—which adds value beyond the tool name. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as required permissions, idempotency, or error handling when the account is not in the team.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the clarifying parenthetical is appended efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 two-string-parameter tool, the description covers the primary behavior and the side-effect, but it leaves other aspects unstated: there is no output schema, no annotation, and no mention of what the tool returns, preconditions, or failure modes. An agent would need to infer these or test the 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 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on teamId or accountId beyond the tool name and phrasing. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about formats, relationships, or semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Remove') and resource ('account from a team'), and the parenthetical clarifies that removal means reassignment to the default team rather than deletion. This distinguishes it from related tools like delete_team or disconnect_account without needing to open the 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?

The description implies the tool is for removing an account from a team, and the reassignment note hints at the consequence. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as add_team_account or state when this tool should be preferred over disconnect_account, leaving usage context implicit.

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