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

Annotations already indicate a destructive operation with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context by restricting use to the host and to the active room, and explicitly states the effect of disconnecting and removing a peer. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The host restriction is front-loaded first, followed by the action, then the source for the required parameter. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has only one fully documented parameter, and has an output schema. The description supplies the remaining operational context: permission level, applicable room state, and how to obtain the userId. Nothing essential for invoking the tool 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?

The schema already documents userId with full 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance on how to source the value, namely from srift_session_status participants. This helps the agent construct a valid argument beyond just knowing the parameter type.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Disconnect and remove a peer from the active room.' It also names where to obtain the required userId, which sharpens the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like reject_join or close_session, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition ('Host-only') and a precondition ('active room'). It also tells the agent exactly where to get the required parameter value, from srift_session_status participants. It does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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