remove_guest_from_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive/mutating operation, but the description doesn't disclose what happens to the guest's associated data (tasks, comments, assignments), whether the operation is reversible, or whether special permissions are needed. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single concise sentence, highly efficient with no filler. Slightly under-specified but the conciseness itself is not the issue, hence a 4 rather than 5 since it could afford a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, side effects on guest-linked data, or permission requirements. The 2-parameter schema is simple, but the operational semantics of removing a guest from a workspace deserve more coverage.

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 (team_id and guest_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers everything.

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 clearly states the action (remove), the resource (guest user), and the scope (from a workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like invite_guest_to_workspace and get_guest, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself. Clear verb+resource+location relationship.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no caveats about prerequisites (must the guest exist? must they be in the workspace first?), and no exclusion criteria. The sibling get_workspace_members and invite_guest_to_workspace suggest related workflows but no guidance is provided connecting them.

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