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

There is a tension worth noting: annotations declare destructiveHint=false, while the description says the person loses access at once and that verified owners cannot be removed here. This is not a hard contradiction (removal is reversible via add_user, and the call reports instead of acting on verified owners), so no flag. The description does add real behavioral context (immediate access loss, delegated vs verified handling, cross-user impact), but the destructiveHint=false label understates the effect.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the ownership precondition before the edge cases, and every sentence carries operational weight. It is on the long side, with the API-key sentence being near-boilerplate, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-param destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers ownership auth, the delegated/verified owner branch (including that the call reports rather than acts), confirmation behavior, and cross-user impact. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents both params well (email 'as shown by list_users' and the property format for Domain vs URL-prefix). The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, so it falls below the baseline-3 expectation for a fully-covered schema.

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 and resource ('Remove a user from a property') and scopes it against the adjacent add_user/list_users tools. An agent immediately knows this is the destructive counterpart to google-search-console_add_user.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (must be owner of the property or its parent) and distinguishes the delegated-owner case from the verified-owner case, telling the agent which removals this call can actually perform. Also says to confirm with the user before each call.

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