remove_guest_from_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It states the action (revoke access), result (confirmation), and constraint (Enterprise plan). However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversible?), required permissions, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a four-word constraint. Front-loaded with the main action. Every word is meaningful; no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers the main action and a plan requirement but omits return value details, error handling, and prerequisites beyond plan type. For a mutation tool, more context on behavior (e.g., idempotent? role requirements?) would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Revoke a guest's access'), the resource ('a Folder'), and notes a return value ('Returns a confirmation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_guest' (workspace-level) and 'remove_guest_from_list/task' by specifying 'folder'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. siblings; the 'Enterprise plan only' provides a prerequisite but not situational direction. The tool's name and context imply it's for folder-specific revocation, but the description lacks explicit usage hints or alternatives.

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