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

Annotations already give destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by flagging the operation as a WRITE and, crucially, stating that the effect is reversible via workiz_assign_lead. It stops short of noting permission requirements or behavior when the member isn't assigned.

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 terse fragments: operation class, action, reversal path, endpoint. Zero filler and the most important information (WRITE, reversibility) is front-loaded.

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 two-param destructive tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring destructiveness, the description covers what's needed: what it removes, how to undo it, and the underlying endpoint. Minor gaps remain around permissions and the no-op/error case.

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 100%, so both UUID and User are already documented with examples and the 'by name' constraint. The description's parenthetical '(by name)' merely echoes the schema's User description, adding no new format or validation detail. 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 lead') with the WRITE: prefix signalling the operation class. It also names the sibling it pairs with (workiz_assign_lead), which separates it from workiz_unassign_job and the assign_* family without opening a 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?

'Reversible with workiz_assign_lead' gives a clear routing rule for undoing the action, and the header declares when to expect a write. It doesn't spell out prerequisites (e.g. the member must currently be assigned) or an explicit when-not, so it falls just short of 5.

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