gateway_knowledge_space_remove_member

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a destructive removal, what resources are affected, permission requirements, or any side effects. Being an 'alias' does not disclose the actual behavior.

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 with no filler, making it structurally concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, omitting all behavioral and semantic detail. It is not tautological like 'Process', so it earns a middle score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, low parameter coverage, and only a two-parameter schema, the description is far from complete. The alias reference points toward a canonical tool that may fill gaps, but this definition does not stand alone. An agent cannot invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided description.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for 'space' or 'subject'. The parameter names are only mildly suggestive and do not clarify expected formats, value domains, or relationships. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate and completely fails to do so.

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 the tool is a 'Compatibility alias for gateway_knowledge_member_remove', which identifies its purpose by equivalence to a canonical sibling. Combined with the self-explanatory name and title, an agent can infer it removes a member from a knowledge space. It lacks an explicit verb+resource statement in the description itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gateway_knowledge_member_remove or any other alternative. Calling it a 'compatibility alias' implies the canonical tool should generally be preferred, but it never explicitly says 'use the other tool instead' or explains when this alias is appropriate.

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