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

Annotations confirm destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a default preview mode unless confirm:true is passed, and the re-admission constraint tied to the owner. It does not describe what happens to the user's access to board contents afterward.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and its main precondition, no filler or repetition of the title/name.

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 no output schema, the description covers the action, the confirm gate, and key eligibility constraints. Minor omissions are post-action consequences and whether the action is reversible by the user themselves.

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 50% (boardId undocumented, confirm documented). The description reinforces the confirm semantics ('Needs confirm: true; without it the result is a preview'), which is the only non-obvious parameter, and boardId is self-explanatory from its name and required status.

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 ('Removes the user from a board') plus the scope qualifier that it is a board shared with them, which implicitly separates it from remove_member. It does not name the sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear precondition ('someone else shared with them') and an explicit when-not case ('The owner can't leave their own board'), and notes the owner is the one who must re-add them. It stops short of naming alternative tools such as remove_member or revoke_access for comparison.

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