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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: access ends immediately, and open conversations are reassigned or returned to the unassigned queue.

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 sentences with no waste. The immediate removal effect is stated first, followed by the conversation-handling consequence.

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 mutation with annotations covering safety and a simple two-parameter schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains access removal and conversation reassignment. Minor gaps remain, such as whether removal is reversible or requires re-invitation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for reassignTo by explaining it receives the removed teammate's open conversations, and clarifies the fallback when it is omitted: conversations go back to the unassigned queue.

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 and resource: 'Remove someone from the workspace'. The effect is made concrete with 'their access ends at once', distinguishing it from siblings like change_teammate_role or revoke_invitation.

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 explains what happens to open conversations but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as change_teammate_role or revoke_invitation. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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