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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: deleting the agent interrupts active runs and pauses sandboxes, exactly like a standalone agent delete, and revision-bound agents are refused.

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?

The description is three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by side effects and the revision constraint. Every sentence adds distinct operational value without redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: scope, side effects, and revision-binding restrictions. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters (agent_id and automation_id) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove an agent from an automation') and scopes it to teams on the Automations workspace with or without revisions. It also distinguishes the operation from revision-bound membership changes by noting that membership is not versioned and that revision-bound agents are refused.

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 gives a clear when-not condition: if the active revision binds the agent, removal is refused and the caller must first activate a revision that omits it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like removeAutomationRevisionAgent, but the revision constraint provides strong routing context.

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