Evacuate user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but omits side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or impact on rooms. Given this is a destructive operation (parting a user from all rooms), more transparency is needed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys what the tool does.

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?

The tool has one simple parameter and no output schema, so a brief description might suffice. However, the description lacks any mention of success/failure behavior, prerequisites, or edge cases (e.g., user not in any rooms). It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter ('userId' with a description of the fully-qualified ID). The tool description adds the 'local user' constraint, clarifying that the userId must correspond to a local user, which is not explicit in the schema. This adds meaningful value.

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 clearly states the action ('Part a local user') and the scope ('from every room they are currently joined to'). It is specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'evacuate_room', which presumably operates on a room rather than a user.

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: this tool is for local users and affects all memberships. It implicitly indicates when to use it (when a user needs to be removed from all rooms), and the 'local user' qualifier implicitly excludes remote users. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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