delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove member from workspace,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the member's data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about critical behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence ('Remove member from workspace') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 (a destructive mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a delete operation in a workspace management context, this minimal description leaves too many open questions for safe and effective use.

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 0% description coverage, with two required parameters (wid and id) undocumented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'wid' (workspace ID) and 'id' (member ID) represent, their formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Remove member from workspace' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('member from workspace'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_workspaces__wid__ (which deletes entire workspaces) and patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_ (which likely modifies members). However, it doesn't explicitly specify that it's a deletion operation vs. other removal types, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing workspace admin permissions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like patch_workspaces__wid__members__id_ (which might update member roles) or post_workspaces__wid__members (which likely adds members). This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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