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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses per-request membership rechecking, that existing tokens die on their next request with no separate revocation needed, that removal is irreversible, and that prior per-recipient links are not restored. These are exactly the operational consequences an agent must know before invoking 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?

Front-loaded with the critical constraint ('Owner only') and every sentence carries real information. It is on the long side, with the token-behavior clause and the creator-exclusion clause each doing work, though a couple of asides could be tightened without loss.

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, non-idempotent-in-spirit membership operation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects on tokens and links, irreversibility, the edge case of the workspace owner, and the correct recovery path. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single user_id parameter including its 26-character constraint. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by warning that 26-character IDs look alike and pointing to list_members as the source that reveals nicknames — useful disambiguation for a single opaque ID.

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 someone from this workspace') and immediately scopes the effect to pages, folders, links and feedback, which distinguishes it from siblings like set_member_role or revoke_api_token. An agent can tell 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 explicit preconditions ('Owner only'), the intended use case (cutting someone off immediately since membership is rechecked per request), a hard exclusion (the workspace creator cannot be removed), and the correct sibling for reversal ('re-adding them needs add_member or invite_teammate'). It also prescribes confirming the target with the user before calling, which is unusual and valuable guidance.

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