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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by clarifying this is a SOFT delete that retains data, enumerating the cascade (detaches org membership, frees a seat), and disclosing the last-admin refusal precondition. It also implies non-idempotent semantics by making the removal state-dependent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and its consequences, then ends with the routing alternative. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, preconditions, and the sibling alternative well. The only shortfall is the undocumented membershipId, which leaves the agent without guidance on sourcing the identifier.

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 0% and the single parameter (membershipId, a UUID) is never explained in the description — no hint about where the identifier comes from or whether it is a membership vs. user ID. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 precise verb (remove/soft-delete) and resource (member), then enumerates the exact side effects: deactivation, org detachment, seat release, data retention. It also names the adjacent sibling (deactivate_member) so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: use deactivate_member to keep the member attached to the org. It also states a hard precondition (refuses on the org's last admin), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking.

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