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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the change propagates within a minute, the action is irreversible, the only recovery is re-invitation, and two specific failure modes with status codes are named. This is exactly the added value the behavioral dimension rewards.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct payload: effect, propagation timing, irreversibility plus remedy, and permission/error constraints. The consequence of the call is front-loaded before the caveats.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequence, timing, reversibility, authorization, and error codes. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single user_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 404 not_found case. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 your organization') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like invite_member and update_organization_member by describing the destructive nature of the action. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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 prerequisites (the key must be owner-created), explicit exclusions (cannot remove an owner or the key's creator, with the exact 403 codes), and the recovery path (re-invite). It does not explicitly contrast with update_organization_member or listOrganizationMembers as alternatives, but the constraints are far richer than typical.

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