groupChat_removeParticipants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details on its own. It only says to remove participants by ID, without mentioning permissions, whether participants are kicked, partial failure behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive mutation.

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 very short, but the first sentence ('Remove the participants') is redundant with the second and adds little information. It also contains a typo ('to the group' instead of 'from the group'), reducing polish.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this mutation tool should explain expected outcomes, prerequisites, and edge cases. The description only gives the basic action, leaving the agent without enough context to use it confidently.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The phrase 'by ID' aligns with participantIds but adds no extra semantics about defaults or optional behavior.

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 states a clear action: remove participants from a group chat. It uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource ('participants' in a group). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like groupChat_addParticipants or groupChat_demoteParticipants, though the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as groupChat_addParticipants or groupChat_demoteParticipants. The description simply repeats the operation without context or conditions.

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