Remove editor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing cascade behavior (they lose the board and nested boards unless a parent is shared), that the removed person is not notified, and the owner exception — real behavioral value beyond structured fields. It stops short of saying what a failed removal returns or what permissions the caller needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by consequences and the owner exception; nothing is wasted. Minor awkwardness in 'the boards inside it unless a parent board is shared with them too', but each clause carries information.

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 destructive, single-target mutation with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, exclusions and the inverse operation. Only caller-permission requirements and the result of a no-op/failed removal are left unstated.

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 100%, so board_id, user_id and email are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the target is identified 'by user_id or email' and that exactly one editor is affected, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('take away someone's access to a board') plus the secondary case ('cancel an invite they have not accepted'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like invite_editor and get_sharing without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the operative conditions (removing one editor, cancelling a pending invite), names the inverse tool ('invite_editor adds them back'), and states an explicit exclusion ('The owner cannot be removed'). An agent has everything needed to choose this tool or not.

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