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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive and idempotent. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'remove', such as consequences (e.g., does not delete the user, only the association) or side effects. Since the description adds nothing beyond the annotations, it falls short of providing valuable disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence: 'Remove a user from a tenant.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it omits any extra guidance that might enhance clarity.

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?

With only two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks explicit mention of the operation's scope (removing the association without deleting the user), which could be useful, but given the simplicity, it is borderline complete. The lack of any additional detail or prerequisites makes it somewhat incomplete.

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% with both user_id and tenant_id described as 'The user ID' and 'The tenant ID'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify the relationship semantics (e.g., that the user is removed only from that specific tenant).

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 'Remove a user from a tenant' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (user from tenant). It distinguishes from siblings like add_user_to_tenant (opposite action) and remove_all_user_tenants (removes from all tenants) by specifying a single tenant.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that remove_all_user_tenants is for removing from all tenants, nor does it advise how to use this for a specific tenant relationship. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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