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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, yet the description adds real substance beyond them: access revoked immediately, folder bindings removed, created surveys preserved, and re-entry only via a new invite with folders reassigned. This is exactly the kind of destruction-scope disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with the action and its consequence front-loaded. Each sentence carries distinct information (effect, survivals, reversibility), though the phrasing could be marginally more compact.

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 no output schema, the key decision inputs (immediate loss of access and folder links, preserved surveys, non-trivial restoration path) are all disclosed. No output schema means return values need not be described.

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 both parameters (member_id, workspace_id) are already documented with their sources. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Исключает участника из аккаунта') and the immediate effect. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_workspace_members, but it does not name alternatives such as set_workspace_member_role for role changes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the warnings about irreversibility ('Вернуть человека можно только новым приглашением') tell the agent this is a high-consequence action, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. role change vs. removal).

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