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

Strong disclosure of consequences the annotations don't cover: blocked members lose cabinet/API/MCP access and their member key stops working, while non-access data is retained and the seat is still billed. However, the sentence «Повтор того же состояния — успех без изменений» asserts idempotent behavior, which conflicts with the declared idempotentHint=false.

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 scope/effect statement is front-loaded and every clause carries information (side effects, exclusions, idempotency, permission). The long multi-clause sentences are dense but not padded.

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 mutation tool with annotations and a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: prerequisites, forbidden targets, retained data, and repeat-call behavior.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (including the meaning of the `blocked` boolean). The description adds only the side-effect context of blocking, not additional parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb pair and resource: it closes or restores a member's access to the account without deleting the member. It immediately differentiates itself from removal-style siblings by stating the member is not deleted and that role, folders, note and API settings are preserved.

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?

It gives concrete applicability context and explicit exclusions: cannot block the owner, yourself, or someone who has not yet accepted the invite, and it requires the «Участники» permission. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. remove_workspace_member, set_workspace_member_api_access) for the agent to route between.

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