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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description aligns with that. Beyond annotations, it adds meaningful behavioral context: permission requirements, role-based removal restrictions, and the last-owner safeguard, which help the agent anticipate failure cases.

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?

The entire description is a single, tight sentence with parenthetical constraints that carry high-signal information. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the permission gate, and the critical edge case.

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 destructive membership-removal tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the key operational constraints: who may act, who may be removed, and the protected last-owner case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their sources. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness; 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove a member') and the object ('from an organization'), which immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like invite_member or change_member_role. It also adds precise access constraints that clarify the tool's specific scope.

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 clear context on when this tool applies by specifying owner/admin permissions and noting that only an owner may remove an admin or owner. It also gives an exclusion, 'last owner cannot be removed'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them over this one.

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