Remove people from a group

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds an authorization constraint (administrator scope) but does not disclose irreversibility or the confirmation requirement; however, the schema's confirm parameter covers that. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but the description contributes only modest behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 tool with four required parameters, the description is minimal. It relies on schema descriptions for parameter details and annotations for destructive behavior. It could mention the required confirmation, though that is already present in the schema. Overall, adequate but not rich.

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%, so all parameters (accountId, groupId, contactIds, confirm) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond naming the action, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('participants from a group'), and constrains to groups the account administers. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like add_group_participants, leave_group, or promote_group_participants.

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 a prerequisite condition ('a group the account administers') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that self-removal should use leave_group, or that demotion should use demote_group_participants.

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