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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: an authentication requirement (account-wide key) and a hard restriction on the Default workspace owner. Minor gaps remain (reversibility, side effects on other workspaces), but this is solid added value.

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?

Two lean sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraint following immediately; nothing is padded. The trailing '[#7d3ad6]' artifact is unexplained noise that slightly hurts otherwise clean structure.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, an auth prerequisite, and a key restriction, while annotations carry the safety profile. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, missing only sibling routing.

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 both parameters (workspace_uuid, user_public_id) are already documented in the schema, and the workspace_uuid description even points to list_my_workspaces. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('a member's assignment to a workspace'), scoping it to agency/Enterprise accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling assign_workspace_member and from account-level remove_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 a useful prerequisite ('Needs an account-wide key') and a constraint ('account owner cannot be unassigned from the Default workspace'), which implies usage context. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the adjacent siblings assign_workspace_member or remove_member, so the agent must infer the correct choice.

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