Remove a teammate

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the member loses access, it is reversible via re-invitation, and confirmation with the user is required. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the behavioral understanding, though it could detail side effects like data handling but that is not necessary given annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The main action and consequence are front-loaded, followed by the critical usage instruction. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive nature, the lack of an output schema, and the full schema coverage, the description covers the essential steps: what the tool does, the required confirmation, and the reversibility. It does not mention what happens to the member's associated data, but that is not critical for invoking the tool. The instruction to confirm with the user is a key safety measure that is included.

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% with descriptions for both email and confirm. The description adds semantic value by explaining the confirm parameter's purpose ('REQUIRED true' in schema) and clarifying that the email is the identifier for the member. It goes beyond the schema by specifying the workflow: confirm with user, then call with confirm:true.

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 states the exact action: 'Remove a member from this brand workspace by email' with the consequence 'they lose access'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like 'invite_member' and 'set_role' by specifying the remove operation and the email identifier. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Confirm the exact person with the user, then call with confirm:true.' It also implies the destructive nature and that removal is reversible ('you can re-invite them later'), giving context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the unique confirmation requirement and destructive nature make the usage clear.

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