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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the action revokes team Space access, requires prior authorization, and silently fails/is blocked for owners and the acting user. What is missing is any note on irreversibility or how the removal is confirmed.

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 tight sentences: the when-to-use condition leads, the destructive mechanics and the exclusion rule follow. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, side effect, authorization requirement and blocked cases. Only irreversibility or post-removal behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 parameter already documents that it takes a numeric member ID and that list-team-members should be used first for names/emails. The description only restates 'the specified member_id', adding no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, 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 (remove), a specific resource (existing teammate), and the resulting scope change (revokes access to team Spaces). The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from cancel-team-invitation, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 a clear trigger ('when the user explicitly wants to remove an existing teammate') and states real exclusions (owners and the acting user cannot be removed). It does not point at alternatives such as update-team-member-role or cancel-team-invitation, so routing among siblings is incomplete.

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