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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the blast radius: an org-level removal cascades to every team. It still omits irreversibility, required permissions, and failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(with team)' is slightly awkward phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with no documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core scope distinction but leaves out reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens when the member is not present – gaps an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains the optional 'team' parameter's semantics and its effect on scope, but says nothing about the expected format of 'org' or 'member' identifiers.

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 ('take an account out of') and resource (a team or org), which clearly distinguishes it from org_members_add and team_members. It does not name siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 a clear conditional: supplying a team removes only from that team, otherwise the member is removed from the org and all its teams. That is real usage context, though it names no alternatives (e.g., agent_leave) and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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