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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics the annotations can't convey: on group-linked boards the member reverts to a regular Telegram member rather than being fully removed, and role-based authorization limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers in the group-link caveat and permission rules. Four tight sentences, all loading-bearing; slightly dense but efficient.

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?

Covers the behavior, constraints, and permission model needed to invoke correctly, with output schema absent but return value relatively self-evident for a removal operation. Rich enough for an agent to act without trial and error.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by implying board_id determines the board type behavior, but doesn't elaborate on user_id format beyond the schema.

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 a board"), clearly distinct from siblings like add_board_member, invite_board_member, and remove_namespace_member. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete when/when-not guidance: Telegram-only members cannot be removed, and a permission hierarchy is spelled out (owner removes admin/user, admin removes user, owner cannot be removed). It stops short of explicitly routing to sibling tools for adjacent cases.

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