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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the main effect (removing access) and the crucial detail that the user keeps their workspace account, which prevents misinterpretation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or error handling, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and effective, with two sentences that immediately state the action and the key qualifier about the account. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple revocation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core functionality and the key distinction from user removal. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus related tools, and it does not mention the optional workspace parameter or any prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps that an agent might need.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 action ('take away one person's access to one tool') with a clear resource (a specific tool) and subject (a person). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'share' or 'set_access' by implying the opposite of granting access, and it clarifies that the user's account is preserved, which is a key differentiator from 'users_remove'.

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 implies usage for revoking a single user's access to a single tool but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. Given the sibling tools like 'share', 'set_access', and 'users_remove', the agent might need additional guidance on selecting this tool, but the core intent is clear enough for a basic call.

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