tc_remove_project_user

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns "DESTRUCTIVE — they lose all access," and discloses the write-enable requirement and the confirm safety gate. This enriches the agent's understanding of consequences and prerequisites, complementing the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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 clear purpose line, requirement line, Arg list, and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, output schema, annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and return format. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: project_id is the project ID, user_id is the member ID from tc_list_project_members, and confirm must be true as a safety gate. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation and adds cross-reference information.

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 explicitly states "Remove a member from a project," which is a specific verb (remove) and resource (member from a project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tc_add_project_user and tc_update_project_user, which perform different actions on project members.

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 explicit usage conditions: "Requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 AND confirm=true." It also notes the destructive nature, which implies caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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