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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the immediate consequence (loss of access), what happens to the removed user's account, the reversal cost (new invitation required), and the permission requirement (admins only). This is real behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 clauses, all load-bearing: effect, side effect, reversibility, permission, and the preview precondition. The operational constraint is at the end where it acts as the final gate before invocation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers consequences and authorization well enough to call safely. The only missing piece is how to source user_id, which leaves a small but real gap.

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?

There is one required parameter, user_id, at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its format, or where to obtain the identifier (e.g., from crm_list_workspace_members). One small clarifying clause would have closed this gap entirely.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a member') and immediately disambiguates from the similarly-named preview_remove_workspace_member via the 'Only call after approval' clause. The scope (this workspace) and the effect (their account gets its own empty workspace) make clear exactly what is removed.

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?

Explicitly gates the call on two conditions: admins only, and prior approval of preview_remove_workspace_member. That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it, so the agent has no inference to do.

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