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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership requirement and read-only API key ineligibility. It does not detail reversibility or downstream effects, but destructiveHint covers the core risk for this simple revoke action.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential usage constraints without filler. Every clause contributes operational value.

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 two-parameter tool with one required field and full schema coverage, the description provides all necessary operational context: what is removed, how to identify the target, and permission restrictions. No output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety semantics.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics for principal_id by explaining it is the id returned by layerz_list_shares and clarifying the difference between an active-share user id and a pending-invite id, which is beyond the schema's generic 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a collaborator or pending invite from a model by principal_id'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like layerz_share_model and layerz_list_shares by stating exactly what action is performed and what identifier is used.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the source of principal_id (layerz_list_shares) and distinguishes active shares from pending invites. It also provides clear when-not-to-use constraints: owner-only and not available for read-only API keys.

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