remove_guest

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only reveals that the tool removes a guest from a Workspace. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects (e.g., removing from all folders/lists), or whether the action is reversible.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information: the action and the constraint.

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 simple removal tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is borderline sufficient. However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects, or when the Enterprise restriction applies, which could leave an AI agent uncertain about safe invocation.

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 documents team_id with a fallback hint, but guest_id lacks a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention the parameters. With 50% schema coverage and no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 action (remove), the resource (guest from a Workspace), and includes a constraint (Enterprise only), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_guest_from_folder or remove_guest_from_list.

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 mentions 'Enterprise only,' which provides a usage condition, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_guest or invite_guest. It implies basic removal but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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