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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description does add real value with "their work stays," disclosing data-retention semantics the annotations cannot convey. It omits whether the action is reversible, what happens if the account is not a member, and whether member counts or ownership constraints apply.

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 very short sentences with the effect stated first and the non-effect second; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with annotations but no output schema, the definition covers the core effect and the key retention caveat, which may be sufficient for a careful agent. It is still thin on authorization preconditions, failure modes, and identifier sourcing, all of which the empty schema leaves to the description.

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 0% — both project_id and account_id carry only a title and minLength, with no format or lookup guidance. The description does not compensate at all: it never mentions which identifiers are needed, what form they take, or how to obtain them.

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?

"Ends a person's access to a project" gives a specific verb+resource that maps unambiguously to revoking a project membership, and the second sentence clarifies the scope of removal. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (put_project_member, invite_project_member, revoke_share), so it falls short of 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus put_project_member (change role/access level) or revoke_share/revoke_spec_link (other kinds of revocation), and no prerequisites such as required admin permissions. The only implicit guidance is "their work stays," which hints at what the tool does not remove.

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