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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses important side effects: linked agents are also removed, a non-member removal returns removed=false, and previously saved copies remain separate data. These details materially help an agent understand the consequences of a destructive operation.

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 three tight sentences, front-loads the core action and permission condition, and then adds only relevant behavioral notes. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the annotations already flag the operation as destructive. The description adds the critical owner requirement, agent removal side effect, idempotent non-member behavior, and data-retention note, though it leaves parameter roles ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description needs to explain the two parameters. It does not explicitly map space_id or human_owner_id to their roles, and it is unclear whether human_owner_id identifies the owner performing the removal or the target member being removed.

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 specific verb and resource: remove a member and their linked agents from a private Space. It distinguishes the action from self-service leaving by specifying 'someone else' and from invitation flows by describing removal.

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?

It clearly sets the caller context ('As the Space owner') and limits the operation to a private Space with another person. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as space_leave, but the 'someone else' wording implicitly separates this from leaving a Space oneself.

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