remove_workspace_member

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that workspace access is revoked but the user remains in the organization, which helps the agent understand the exact scope of destruction. It does not cover reversibility or permissions, but the essential behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. The second sentence adds important clarification about what the tool does not do, which is essential for disambiguation.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity: there is an output schema, the parameters are fully described in the schema, annotations cover safety traits, and the description provides the needed scope and alternative guidance. No critical information 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%, with both required parameters (user_id and workspace_id) already documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema carries the full semantic burden, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 action: 'Remove a user from a workspace and revoke workspace access.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling delete_user by noting this action does not delete the user from the organization, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: use this tool to remove a user from a workspace, and use delete_user for full removal from the organization. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus an alternative, which is strong guidance.

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