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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, readOnly=false, openWorld=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further and names exactly what is destroyed — membership, all client assignments, accepted invites, and every issued API key. It also adds the permission model and the two hard invariants (only the owner can remove an admin; the owner cannot be removed), which are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then the permission constraints in a compact trailing clause. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. The description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the full cascade of side effects and the authorization preconditions an agent must check before calling.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions ("The staff member to remove." / "The agency (partner) workspace ID."). The description only lightly reinforces the relationship between the two by framing the removal as scoped to the agency, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ("Removes a staff member from the agency") and immediately enumerates the cascade: membership, client assignments, accepted invites, and agency-issued API keys. That enumeration functionally separates it from the sibling revoke tools (agency_profile_revoke_invite, agency_installation_revoke_approval), which act on a single artifact rather than the person.

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 concrete authorization conditions: caller must be agency owner or admin, only the owner may remove an admin, and the owner cannot be removed at all. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives for narrower intents (e.g. agency_profile_unassign for removing only client assignments, or agency_profile_revoke_invite for pending invites), so the when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance is implied rather than stated.

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