Исключить участника

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the exact consequences: the removed person loses access to all bots, scenarios, and case correspondence. It also discloses the owner limitation, which is important behavioral information not present in annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action stated first and the consequences/constraints in the second. It is concise, well-structured, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description fully explains the purpose, consequences, and a key restriction. Given the simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It omits error handling details, but those are not essential for a user deciding to use the tool.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (case and member), and the tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific details. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: removing a person from a case. It uses a specific verb ('убирает') and resource ('человека из дела'), and the context about losing access distinguishes it from other member-related tools like members_list or members_save.

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 gives context on when to use the tool (to revoke a person's access to a case) and includes a critical restriction (the owner cannot be excluded). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like members_save, so it lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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