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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds the permission requirement, the 204 response, the API-key scope (workspaces:write), and the owner-transfer precondition. These are operational facts an agent needs before calling a destructive mutation.

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?

Six compact clauses, each carrying a distinct fact, with the action stated first and the surprising query-parameter constraint flagged early. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, permissions, the one hard failure mode and its remedy, the success code, and parameter placement. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so field meanings are already documented. The description still adds transport-level value the schema cannot convey: deletionUserUuid must go in the QUERY string, not the path or body — exactly the detail that causes failed invocations.

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 member from the workspace'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the self-removal sibling pm_leave_workspace or from pm_remove_team_member, so an agent must infer which removal tool applies.

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 real preconditions (MANAGE_USERS permission) and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative: cannot remove the owner, use pm_transfer_workspace_ownership first. It stops short of routing between this and pm_leave_workspace/pm_remove_team_member, but the when-not guidance is concrete.

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