remove_team_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. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether removal is reversible, what happens to the member's content/access, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 restriction. Every word earns its place with zero waste. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by the platform restriction.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects like required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. The 'Qiita Team only' restriction is helpful but insufficient for the agent to understand the full behavioral context of this operation.

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 the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details 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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from the team'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies 'Qiita Team only' which provides important scope context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'remove_group_member', which handles a similar operation for groups rather than teams.

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 like 'remove_group_member' or other team management tools. While 'Qiita Team only' indicates a platform restriction, it doesn't help the agent choose between this and similar tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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