remove_group_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if the removal is permanent/reversible, what happens to the user's access, or any rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' note adds some context but doesn't cover key behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key limitation. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every element earns its place in this minimal description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what the response looks like. The 'Qiita Team only' note adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral transparency needed for a tool that modifies group membership.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (url_name and user_id). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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') and resource ('a member from a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_group_member' by specifying removal. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'remove_team_member' beyond the 'Qiita Team only' qualifier, which is more about scope than sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Qiita Team only' which indicates a scope limitation, but doesn't explain prerequisites, permissions needed, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'remove_team_member'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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