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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation behavior: access stops immediately, content persists, and the owner is protected. This gives the agent meaningful expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the two most important behavioral caveats (immediate access loss and content retention) follow directly. The owner restriction is placed last as a necessary guardrail.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts an agent needs: what happens to access, what happens to content, and who cannot be targeted. Nothing critical is missing.

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% for the only parameter, userId, and the schema already explains provenance ('from list_members') and the owner constraint. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Removes someone from the workspace') and clearly conveys the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like cancel_invite or update_member_role, though 'from the workspace' implies an existing member rather than a pending invite.

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 clearly implies usage (remove an existing member) and includes an important exclusion (owner can't be removed), but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like cancel_invite or update_member_role. This is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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