Remove User From Group

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 mentions the zero-balance constraint but does not state what happens if the user has a balance (e.g., error, failure), any authentication requirements, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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—two short sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the constraint is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place, exemplifying efficient writing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool of this nature. It lacks details on error handling (especially the zero-balance case), required permissions, and the exact effect of the operation. Given the low parameter explanation and absence of annotations, the agent is left without crucial operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention user_id or group_id at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the names alone. No additional constraints, formats, or relationships are provided, failing to add any value beyond 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 specific action ('Remove a user from a group') and the resource involved, and it is easily distinguished from its sibling 'add_user_to_group' as the inverse operation. The verb 'remove' is unambiguous and directly tied to the resource, meeting the highest standard.

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 clear context (removal of a user) and a critical prerequisite ('User must have zero balance in the group'), which guides when it can be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other group-related operations, so it stops short of full guidance.

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