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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds real value beyond them: immediate loss of access, API keys and connected apps ceasing to work, and the retention guarantee that transfers stay in the account. It also discloses the owner-only authorization requirement, which no annotation conveys.

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?

The consequence of removal is front-loaded and the sentences are mostly tight. The closing clause ('while the plan includes team seats') is awkwardly grafted onto the permission statement and muddies an otherwise clear point.

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?

With destructive annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover consequences, permissions, and data retention, which it does. The garbled final sentence about seats slightly weakens an otherwise complete picture for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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 member_id field already documents itself as 'the teammate's seat id, from list_team_members.' The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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 teammate from the account') plus a second mode ('cancel a pending invitation, and free the seat'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling decline_team_invitation, which also acts on invitations, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 clear context for two distinct cases: removing an existing teammate and cancelling a pending invite, and adds a permission prerequisite ('Only the account owner's API keys ... can remove'). It stops short of naming alternatives such as decline_team_invitation or list_team_members for discovering the seat id.

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