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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive nature (revoking access) and the need for confirm=true, but omits the preview behavior when confirm is false or omitted (documented only in the schema). This is a significant gap for transparency.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The purpose and a critical usage note are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the primary action and precondition. However, the missing preview behavior disclosure and lack of guidance on alternatives leave the description slightly incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new semantic value. It does reinforce the confirm parameter's role, but this is already clear from the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a user's assignment') and the target resource ('from a customer'), with the effect of revoking access. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove_user' and 'remove_user_project' by specifying the customer context.

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 provides the critical precondition 'Requires confirm=true to proceed,' which is essential for safe usage. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_user_project for project-level removal) or mention any exclusions.

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