remove_user_community_space

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the action is permanent, that auth is injected server-side and never by the model, that calls are throttled/retried, and exactly what HTTP statuses and error payloads to expect. This goes far beyond the annotations and gives the agent essential expectations for a destructive call.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: destructive warning, endpoint, behavior, server-side auth, throttling/retry, return semantics, error mapping, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important warning and contains no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, what the response looks like, what errors mean, how auth works, and when the tool should be used. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and anticipate failure modes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates that the user is identified by uid and the space by id, adding no extra format, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Remove a user from a community space', and explicitly names the resource and identifiers involved. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like remove_user_seat and remove_user_user_group by scoping to community spaces.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('only after the user confirms the removal') and when not to ('To merely revoke access or deactivate, use the matching update or unenroll tool instead'). It also lists related Community tools as context, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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