remove_list_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a removal but does not mention potential side effects, required authentication, error conditions, or reversibility, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and well-structured, leading with the purpose and then listing parameters in a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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, the description covers the essential parameters and the key invocation constraint. However, with no annotations, it falls short on behavioral details like return values, error handling, or permission requirements, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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?

The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that screen_name is without '@' and user_id is numeric, and explicitly states list_id is required. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though parameter descriptions remain minimal.

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 verb 'Remove' and resource 'a user from a Twitter List', making the tool's action unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating the removal action, contrasting with add_list_member.

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?

Provides an explicit and important usage constraint: 'Caller must provide exactly one of screen_name / user_id.' This prevents common invocation errors, though it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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