Remove ownership

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and non-read-only annotations, it reveals the important two-step confirmation behavior and that the token cannot be guessed or reused. The phrase 'returns a confirmation token' is slightly under-specified because the schema reveals it comes from a previous refusal, but no annotation contradiction is present.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with the core action stated first, followed by a compact two-step explanation. Every clause contributes; no filler.

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 destructive two-step mutation with rich annotations and a full input/output schema, the description covers the essential call flow and the token lifecycle. It does not discuss auth requirements or explicit consequences of removing the last owner, but those are not critical given the schema and annotation coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural context for confirm_token (first call yields token, second removes), but adds no additional meaning for id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the exact action ('Removes this credential from the owners of a site'), identifying both the resource (ownership credential) and the scope (site), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_site or verify_site. The title 'Remove ownership' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides clear procedural guidance: the two-step call sequence and the instruction to call without confirm_token first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like update_site_owners or delete_site, so it stops short of a 5.

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