Remove a team member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the operationally critical context an agent needs: access is revoked immediately, the action is irreversible, re-adding requires a fresh invitation, and the last-owner guard will block the call. It also discloses the return payload, which is more than the annotations carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the id source, then the consequences, then the guardrail, then the return shape. Four short sentences with no filler; every clause changes how an agent would call the 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool this covers everything material: what it does, both operating modes, the irreversibility warning, the permission/ownership edge case, and the response shape even though an output schema exists. Nothing an agent needs before invoking is missing.

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% and the regex/format is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real provenance value by telling the agent to obtain membership_id from heliyos_team_members_list, which prevents guessing or fabricating an id for a destructive call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes a person from the workspace") and explicitly covers the second mode, "cancels a pending invitation", which distinguishes it from siblings like heliyos_team_members_invite and heliyos_team_members_change_role. The keying parameter (membership_id) is named inline.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: confirm with the user first, and the constraint that the last owner cannot be removed. It also points to heliyos_team_members_list as the source of the id. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer change_role or invite over removal, so not a full 5.

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