Offboard Partner Organization

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

The description claims the offboarding is 'non-destructive', but annotations indicate destructiveHint: true. This contradiction is serious and misleading. Beyond the contradiction, the description provides no additional context about side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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 extremely concise at 6 words, with a single sentence that front-loads the action. However, it omits important details, making it slightly under-specified. Conciseness is positive, but not at the expense of completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description should fully explain the process, but it fails to address the contradiction with annotations, clarify what 'non-destructive' means in context, or describe what happens to delegated access. The presence of an output schema mitigates need for return value details, but behavioral gaps remain.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is well-documented in the schema with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as how to obtain it or its relationship to the offboarding process. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the description adds no value, so score is reduced to 2.

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 'Start non-destructive offboarding' and the immediate effect 'remove delegated access'. It identifies the resource (partner organization) and the outcome, distinguishing it from siblings like suspend/resume. However, 'offboarding' is not fully defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suspend_partner_organization or delete_partner_organization. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or scenarios where offboarding is appropriate.

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