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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add the operational details it does: an authorization prerequisite (requires the workspace owner) and the immunity rules that determine which rows this can and cannot touch. It omits what happens to the removed user's tasks/comments and whether removal is reversible or re-invitable, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a destructive tool.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: the action comes first, then the immunity/exception rules, then the auth requirement. Every clause carries information an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and exclusion cases well. Only the post-removal effects (access revocation, orphaned assignments) are unaddressed.

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%, with both user_id and username documenting the 'either/or is required' rule and pointing to list_namespace_members for lookup. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 an explicitly-granted workspace membership / NamespaceMember row) and immediately scopes it away from two adjacent concepts: the workspace owner and org-inherited memberships. This is enough to separate it from remove_board_member and add_namespace_member without opening a schema.

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 exclusion conditions — the owner cannot be removed, inherited org memberships must be managed on the org surface, and per-board memberships survive. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (remove_board_member, list_namespace_members for discovery), so the alternative routing is implied rather than explicit.

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