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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: immediate access loss for the member's agent, reversibility via re-invitation, the self-removal prohibition, and critically the two-step approval flow where the owner must approve in-browser with an agent PIN. The PIN security warning and the staged-request nature are exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs and cannot get from the destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively adds consequence, exclusion, and approval-flow detail. Every sentence carries useful weight, though the standalone PIN warning is slightly separated from the approval-flow sentence it belongs to.

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, human-approval-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what happens, reversibility, exclusions, the multi-step approval mechanism, and a security constraint. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 email and workspace parameters are already documented in the schema, including the workspace disambiguation note. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 someone from a workspace you own') with the ownership scope that constrains it. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like pause_member (temporary) or cancel_invitation (pending invite) based on the description alone.

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?

Gives clear context for use: removing a member from a workspace you own, with the condition that they can be re-invited later and the exclusion that you cannot remove yourself. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like pause_member or cancel_invitation, so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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