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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing cascade effects (all workspace assignments revoked, seat billing synced), the protected entity (owner cannot be removed), and the auth requirement (needs an account-wide key). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Two efficiently front-loaded sentences lead with the destructive scope before the caveats. Deducted for the trailing artifact token '[#e5169b]', which is noise that does not earn its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers cascade effects, auth needs, and protected entities. It omits reversibility/irreversibility and failure behavior, which would be valuable for a permanent removal operation.

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 schema already tells the agent the user_public_id comes from list_account_members. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail, so the 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 and resource ('Remove a member from the account entirely') and pins the scope precisely, making it distinguishable from workspace-scoped siblings like unassign_workspace_member. The parenthetical eligibility scope (agency/Enterprise) and the note about revoking workspace assignments further sharpen what this tool does.

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 usage context and constraints (account-wide key required, account owner cannot be removed), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of explicitly naming the workspace-level alternative (unassign_workspace_member) or revoke_invite, so routing between removal variants is left to inference.

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