remove_object_collaborator

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail by confirming idempotency when already absent and clarifying the removal action, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions, and the description adds useful context beyond annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering the action, member types, and idempotency. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and high schema coverage (86%), the description adequately covers the core action and the key parameter 'member'. It does not explain other parameters like objectId and objectClass, but the schema descriptions compensate. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for description completeness.

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 description adds specific meaning for the 'member' parameter (UUID, name, email), which complements the input schema's anyOf definition. For other parameters, schema coverage is high (86%) and descriptions are provided, so the tool description does not need to add more. The value added for 'member' lifts the score from baseline 3.

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 tool unsubscribes a workspace member from object notifications by removing its collaborator row. It uses specific verbs ('unsubscribe', 'removing') and resource ('collaborator row'), and inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_object_collaborator' and 'list_object_collaborators'.

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 specifies what constitutes a valid member (UUID, name, email) and mentions idempotency when already absent, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_object_collaborator', though the inverse relationship is implied.

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