Remove a user from a group

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

Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing the confirmation-token workflow and the specific edge-case danger of removing someone from their only group, which goes beyond the generic annotation hints.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The action comes first, and the critical caveat about confirmation and the 'only group' consequence is front-loaded and concise.

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 two-step operation, the description covers the core risk and confirmation requirement. It does not explain return values, but the schema's confirm_token description already implies the first call returns a token, so no essential calling information is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that the operation can leave a user with no group and that a confirmation token is required, which helps the agent understand the user_id/group_id/confirm_token relationship beyond the schema's minimal id 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Takes one account out of one group.' Combined with the title and tool name, it is unmistakable and differentiates from the sibling assign_user_to_group.

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 gives clear context about the destructive consequence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name the inverse operation assign_user_to_group. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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