ghl_project_delete_folder_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds real value beyond them: the idempotency condition, that `isPrivate` is unchanged, that inherited access survives, and the required OAuth scope projects/workspace.write. The generic 'treat every delete as destructive' preamble is consistent with, not contradictory to, the 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 tool-specific content (four crisp sentences) is buried under a long shared API preamble about hierarchy, batch-get RBAC, lexorank `position`, recurring task fields, and task search — none of which relate to revoking a folder member. Front-loading irrelevant content hurts selection speed.

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-required-param operation with no output schema, the definition covers effect, idempotency, non-effects, scope, and endpoint. What's missing is minor: no guidance on the response/confirmation and no explicit alternative tool routing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the three params (folderId, userId, locationId) are self-documented. The description adds only the endpoint path mapping (folderId/userId as path segments); the locationId app-vs-OAuth nuance lives in the schema, not the description, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Revoke Folder Member — Revokes a direct user grant on the folder.' Distinguishes from siblings like ghl_project_delete_folder (deletes the folder), ghl_project_delete_list_user, and ghl_project_delete_space_user by scoping to a folder-level direct user grant.

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 context for when this applies: revoking a direct grant, idempotent if absent, does not change `isPrivate`, and inherited ancestor access is unaffected. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives (e.g., removing the whole folder or space membership) or when not to use it, but the semantics are clear.

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