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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the essential part: "Changes nothing" declares the operation is side-effect free, and "shows who would lose access" describes what comes back. It omits error/edge behavior (nonexistent user_id, insufficient permissions), which for an unannotated mutation-adjacent tool is a real but secondary gap.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the dry-run qualifier, zero filler. Every clause adds a distinct fact: what it is, what it costs, and when to call it.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read-only preview, the description covers purpose, side-effect posture, and sequencing. Given how simple the tool is, the remaining gaps (user_id format, preview payload detail) are minor and out of proportion to the tool's complexity.

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 0% and the single `user_id` parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the id identifies the member whose access would be lost, with no indication of expected format (email, UUID, numeric id) or validation behavior. Adequate implication, not enough detail.

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 action (dry-run preview) against a specific resource (workspace member removal) and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling `remove_workspace_member`. An agent can tell exactly what this does and does not do without opening the schema.

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?

"ALWAYS call before remove_workspace_member" is an explicit, prescriptive routing rule naming the alternative tool. It stops short of a 'when not to use' clause (e.g., whether preview is needed for a self-removal or a member that clearly exists), which keeps it off a 5.

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