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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a write operation, it is reversible via workiz_assign_job (softening the destructive hint), and it maps to the specific endpoint POST /job/unassign/. It does not describe failure modes or whether the job record is otherwise altered, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the WRITE marker is front-loaded so the operation type is the first thing the agent sees.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies operation type, reversibility, sibling routing, and endpoint. Only minor behavioral details (error behavior when the member is not assigned) are absent.

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 the schema already documents both UUID and User (including the exact-name requirement and the pointer to workiz_list_team). The description only repeats 'by name', adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 team member from a job') with an explicit WRITE marker. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling workiz_assign_job by naming it as the inverse operation, so an agent can tell the pair apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to workiz_assign_job as the reverse action, which tells the agent when this tool is the right one to undo an assignment. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what happens if the member is not currently assigned), so it stops short of a full 5.

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