gateway_knowledge_member_remove

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description carries the burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not disclose consequences such as whether the member loses access immediately, whether removal is reversible, or what happens to their data. The permission note is useful but does not cover behavioral transparency.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about parameters and usage, so the brevity is not a strength; it leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any side effects. Given that this is a mutation with zero parameter documentation and no behavioral detail, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly and predict outcomes.

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 has zero description coverage for both parameters ('space' and 'subject'), and the tool description does not explain what these fields represent or how they should be formatted. For example, 'subject' is ambiguous—does it refer to a user ID, email, or a member identifier? This is a critical gap that the description fails to fill.

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 states a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('member from a group knowledge space'), so the core action is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like gateway_knowledge_space_remove_member or gateway_knowledge_member_add, leaving ambiguity about which tool to prefer.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a permission requirement ('Requires space admin access') but gives no context about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when other member-removal tools should be used instead.

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