tc_remove_group_users

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the confirmation safety gate and the TC_ENABLE_WRITE requirement, plus the return format. It does not mention reversibility or partial failure, but enough context is added.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose, followed by requirements, arguments, and return type. Every line provides useful information without redundancy.

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 destructive write operation, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, all parameters, and return format. It lacks details on error handling or transaction behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining each argument: project_id, group_id, user_ids, and confirm as a safety gate. The meaning of user_ids ('Member ids to remove') is clear, and confirm's role is explicitly stated.

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 first line 'Remove members from a group (they stay in the project)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_remove_project_user by clarifying the membership stays in the project.

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 provides clear context: removing members from a group while retaining project membership, and states prerequisites (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 and confirm=true). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes usage unambiguous.

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