documents_remove_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Revoke' implies a mutation, but there is no information about permission requirements, reversibility, side effects, or error conditions. The description adds no context beyond the name.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the operation. There is no fluff, and it is easy to parse. It earns a high score for conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is functionally adequate, but it lacks behavioral and contextual details that would be useful in a broader workflow (e.g., whether the user must currently have access, or how to list current users). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage (both 'id' and 'userId' have descriptions), and the description does not add further meaning to the parameters. It correctly maps 'userId' to the user's access being revoked, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 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 'Revoke a user's access to a document' uses a specific verb ('revoke') and clearly identifies the resource (a user's access to a document). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like documents_add_user or documents_users, and is 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 implies the primary use case (removing a user's access) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It serves as a clear context cue, but the guidance is minimal.

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