revoke_org_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states only the action 'revoke access' without disclosing behavioral details such as whether the action is reversible, what data is affected, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 very short and to the point, but it lacks crucial details. Conciseness is valued, but not at the expense of clarity and completeness. The single sentence is front-loaded but insufficient.

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 is a mutation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result of revocation looks like, whether it returns a success message, or any follow-up actions. The context around member management (e.g., impact on groups, collections) is absent.

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 already describes the single parameter 'memberId' as 'ID of the member to revoke'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score for a well-documented parameter.

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 verb 'Revoke' and resource 'member's access to an organization'. It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from the sibling 'remove_org_member', which might have a similar function.

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 like 'remove_org_member', 'update_org_member', or 'reinvite_org_member'. Prerequisites or conditions for use are not mentioned.

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