remove_workspace_member

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses loss of workspace-specific API key access, that org-level role is unaffected, and that org admins cannot be removed. This covers key behavioral traits but does not mention reversibility or any side effects beyond what is stated.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, consequence, unaffected scope, and limitation. No wasted words.

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 (3 params, straightforward action) and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, consequences, and constraint. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be a workspace member) or return value, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 low (33%), with only 'confirm' described. The description adds overall context but does not explain workspace_id or user_id individually. However, their purpose is reasonably inferable from the tool name and context. A 3 is appropriate as the description slightly compensates for low schema coverage.

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 'Remove a member from a workspace' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_workspace_member and update_workspace_member_role by detailing effects on API keys and org-level role, and adds a clear limitation about org admins.

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 context for when to use (remove from workspace) and includes an exclusion for org admins. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling 'remove_member' (likely org-level removal) or state when not to use this tool.

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