code_workspace_remove_collaborator

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'revoke access,' implying a destructive write operation, but fails to mention permanence, side effects (like notifications), or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence. However, it could benefit from slight expansion without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning the workspace context. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits what the output represents, any prerequisites, or potential errors. Sibling tools indicate the domain (workspace collaboration), yet the description adds minimal value.

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?

Although parameter names (workspace_id, collaborator_id) are self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should have clarified parameter formats, sources, or constraints, but it does not.

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 collaborator's access' clearly states the verb (revoke) and resource (collaborator's access). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like code_workspace_add_collaborator and code_workspace_update_collaborator, making its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_collaborator, deny_access_request). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing workspace admin permissions, and does not mention when not to use it.

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