othos_project_unassign_member

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

The description does not disclose behavioral aspects beyond the action itself. For a mutation, it omits effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate.

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, clear sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 simple removal tool with two required UUIDs and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return type, success indicators, or preconditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal parameter context. It implies projectId and memberId identify the project and member, but lacks detail on where to obtain these IDs or what constitutes a valid membership.

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 the action 'Remove a member from a project', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like othos_project_assign_member (adds) and othos_ticket_unassign_member (different resource).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like othos_ticket_unassign_member, or any prerequisites (e.g., existing membership). The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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