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

Annotations already signal destructive, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds the critical safety workflow (preview step, owner approval, requestId reuse) and the status condition ('claim live only when status is active'). This is useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover the exact scope of removal (e.g., irrevocability).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the safety workflow. No wasted words. The final 'Fields: soclo://...' reference is slightly cryptic but doesn't bloat the description.

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, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical safety confirmation steps and outcome status. It omits details about what exactly is removed, whether it is reversible, and how to recover outcomes beyond reusing requestId. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 50%, with descriptions for confirm, requestId, and adAccountId. The description reinforces the confirm/requestId workflow but provides no information on pageId, userId, or platform. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 user from a Page.' The name and title reinforce this, and the action is distinct from read or assign operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like soclo_ads_remove_ad_account_user or soclo_ads_assign_page_user, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 gives a clear procedural context for a destructive operation: 'preview, then owner-approved confirm:true with the same requestId.' This tells the agent when and how to confirm. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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