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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond the hints by explaining the idempotency mechanism ('a repeat call with the same idempotency_key returns the original result') and the effect on access. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible or what happens to the member's content, but with annotations present this is solid.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the retry-safety note. No filler and nothing that should be cut.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers purpose and retry behavior but leaves significant gaps: the critical user_id parameter, the workspaceId/workspace_id ambiguity, and brand_id are all unaddressed. Adequate on intent, incomplete on operability.

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 only 33% and the description does not compensate. The key parameter user_id (whose member is being removed) is completely undocumented in both schema and description, brand_id is unexplained, and the confusing coexistence of required workspaceId and optional workspace_id is never clarified. Only idempotency_key gets any semantic treatment, and even that is partially redundant with the annotation.

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 (Remove) and resource (member from a workspace) plus the consequence ('ending their access to it'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling verbs invite_workspace_member, update_workspace_member, and list_workspace_members without needing to open any schema.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it (when a member should lose access), but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or which alternative to reach for (e.g. revoke_workspace_invitation vs update_workspace_member). Usage is only implied.

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