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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description builds on that by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (sessions, API keys, agent instances), the auth requirement, and three refusal conditions. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentences with the core action and its permanence front-loaded, followed by refusal conditions and auth. No filler and nothing is 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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the destruction scope, credential requirement, and refusal cases an agent needs before calling. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so membership_id (sourced from list_members) and force are already documented in the schema, including the escalation-path behavior of force. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, 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 member from the organization') and immediately scopes the effect as permanent, which separates it from sibling update_member. The listed downstream effects (sessions, API keys, agent instances stop working) make the action unmistakable.

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 preconditions and exclusions: refused for your own membership, the last active owner, and directory-managed members. It also states the credential requirement ('Requires a personal API key'). It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g., update_member for reversible edits), so it stops short of a 5.

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