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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally and the description repeats nothing wrong. But it adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about required permissions, what happens to the member's existing conversations/assignments, or whether removal is soft or permanent.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no-output-schema tool with two fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves critical gaps: side effects on the removed member's data, permission requirements, and error behavior when the member is not in the team are all unstated.

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?

Two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no semantics for team_id or user_id — no format, no reference to where the IDs come from, no indication that user_id identifies an agent. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Remove a person from a team' clearly states the mutation on the team-membership resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from near-siblings such as remove_agent, remove_inbox_member, or update_agents_in_team, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives. An agent faced with remove_agent vs remove_inbox_member vs update_agents_in_team gets no help choosing; the description would need to state that this removes membership within a team specifically.

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