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

The annotations already flag the operation as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds the owner-only authorization rule and states that the removed email is returned, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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, front-loaded with the action and then the key constraint and return behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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 two-parameter removal tool, the description covers purpose, authorization, and the return value. With no output schema, stating that it returns the removed email is especially helpful, and the destructive nature is already covered by annotations.

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 both parameters. The description mentions email filtering, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: 'Remove a collaborator from a Wavelength flow by email.' This clearly distinguishes it from add_collaborator and list_collaborators, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings like remove_external_collaborators or remove_member.

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?

It states an important prerequisite: 'Only the owner can remove collaborators.' This tells the agent when the call is permitted, but it does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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