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

Annotations provide only generic hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the effect (removal of roles), target-specific behavior, permission requirements, creator limitation, and bulk support. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then uses compact conditional instructions for each target type. The bulk-support note is a single extra sentence, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers main invocation logic, constraints, and bulk behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on `account` and `resource_type` and does not describe the response, but it is still largely sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining mutual-exclusion semantics for `user_email`, `group_id`, and `workspace_api_key_id`, plus the bulk variants. However, it does not explain the `account` parameter or how to select/interpret `resource_type` beyond the schema enum.

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 opens with 'Unshare Workspace Resource' and immediately defines the behavior as 'Removes any existing role on a workspace resource...', making the verb, object, and scope clear. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `elevenlabs_share_resource_endpoint` by describing removal rather than granting.

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 explicit target-selection rules: 'pass only the user email', 'pass only the group id', and 'pass the api key id'. It also states the prerequisite 'You must have admin access to the resource to unshare it' and a hard exclusion: 'You cannot remove permissions from the user who created the resource.'

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