sprrint_workspace_remove_member

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Remove' signals a mutating/destructive operation, but the description does not disclose whether the removal is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the removed person's tasks or content.

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?

One sentence with zero waste, and the action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful operational context.

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 one-parameter tool this is partly adequate, but it is a destructive workspace action with no annotation coverage, no output schema, and no error or edge-case context. An agent cannot tell what to check before calling it or what a successful or failed call looks like.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain user_id, but it only refers to 'a person' without explicitly mapping that person to the user_id parameter. The schema's field name and title already carry most of the meaning, so the description adds little.

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 specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('workspace'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like projects_remove_member. The wording is slightly informal ('person' rather than 'member'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to workspace_invite, workspace_set_role, or projects_remove_member. No prerequisites, exclusions, or edge cases (e.g., admin permission, removing self) are mentioned.

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