remove_user_seat

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds some context with 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'deletes'. It also clarifies the optional removal from the seat offering. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens to associated data. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and to the point. The metadata line (emoji, HTTP method) is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. The two sentences are efficient and front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly improved by removing the metadata line if annotations already convey destructiveness.

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 tool with 3 parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and optional behavior. It does not describe what happens to related entities or whether removal is reversible, but the annotations include idempotentHint=true which implies safety in re-execution. Overall, it is adequate for the complexity.

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 mentions 'optionally from the seat offering,' which adds meaning to the body parameter's purpose beyond the schema. However, the required parameters id and uid are not elaborated upon. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 ('Remove user from a seat') and the resource ('seat'). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools like remove_user_community_space and remove_user_user_group show that this tool is specifically for seats, so it is well differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes the removal action without mentioning prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like add_user_seat_offering or get_users_seat_offering are not referenced, so the agent has no direction on choosing this tool over others.

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