remove_guest_from_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Revoke' (destructive action) and 'Returns a confirmation', but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. The limited disclosure leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 very concise: three short sentences that each convey necessary information. No redundant or superfluous content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the basic action and plan restriction. However, it omits details on error conditions, idempotency, and required permissions. Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's destructive nature, more context 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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Revoke a guest's access to a single task.' It uses a specific verb ('revoke') and resource ('a guest's access to a single task'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_guest_from_folder' or 'remove_guest_from_list'. The additional 'Enterprise plan only' constraint further clarifies scope.

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 only mentions 'Enterprise plan only' as a constraint but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'remove_guest_from_folder' or 'remove_guest_from_list'). It does not specify prerequisites, preferred use cases, or when not to use it.

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