Remove a user

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

The description adds the valuable detail that time entries are retained, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or other data impacts, but the annotation already signals destructive intent.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded and contain no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive action, the description covers the core effect and a key exception. It does not mention the optional workspace_id fallback or the confirm requirement, but these are documented in the schema. With annotations and schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Removes someone from the workspace') and adds a key consequence ('Their time entries stay.'), making it distinct from sibling tools like set_user_status or invite_user.

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 explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The use case is implied by the verb 'removes', but there is no discussion of when to prefer this over deactivating a user or 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.