share_remove_user

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond that: the default call is non-mutating and returns a preview, and only explicit confirmation triggers the actual removal. This explains the safety mechanism and what happens in each mode, which annotations cannot convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, then immediately explains the confirm-gating behavior in a separate paragraph. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (confirm-gating, destructive action) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and the key parameter semantics. The output schema presumably documents return values, so return description is not required. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'notebook' accepts a name or ID, and clarifies the 'confirm' parameter's role in preview vs. actual removal. The 'email' parameter is not explicitly described, but its purpose (user email) is self-evident. This adds meaningful semantics for the non-obvious parameters, though not for all.

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 tool's function: 'Remove a user's access to a notebook.' It specifies the resource (notebook) and the action (remove user access), and it accepts a notebook name or ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like share_set_user or share_status that serve different purposes.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the confirm-gated behavior: calling with confirm=False (default) returns a needs_confirmation preview, while confirm=True is required to actually mutate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the confirmation mechanism is a strong practical guideline for when and how to use the tool safely.

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