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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful facts the annotations don't: the required permission (MANAGE_TEAMS), the API-key scope (teams:write), and the 204 response. It doesn't say what happens to the removed user's task assignments, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the action and scope front-loaded before the auth preconditions. Nothing repeats the tool name or schema.

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 simple destructive removal with no output schema, the description covers the action, the 204 response, and the authorization requirement. A note on side effects (for example, whether the user's task assignments are unassigned) would make it fully complete.

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%, so account, workspace, userUuid and identifier are all documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, 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 single user from a team") with a clear cardinality ("a single user"), which distinguishes it implicitly from pm_remove_workspace_member and pm_add_team_member via the team-vs-workspace resource. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead, so it isn't a 5.

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?

"Requires MANAGE_TEAMS" gives a precondition but not a when-to-use rule; there is no guidance on when to pick this versus pm_change_member_role or pm_remove_workspace_member. The usage context is implied by the resource, not stated.

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