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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context the structured data does not carry: the caller must be owner or admin, and authentication is via a key or an existing sign-in. It stops short of saying whether removal is reversible or what happens to the member's existing content.

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?

Nine words in two fragments, with the permission prerequisite front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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 mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits how to identify the space, what the member loses on removal, and what the tool returns or how it fails when the caller lacks the required role.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies that `key` is an auth credential and `member` is the removal target, but leaves `space` completely unexplained (ID? slug? name?) and gives no format hints for `member`.

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 (remove) and resource (a member), with the space context implied by the tool name and the `space` parameter. It does not distinguish itself from similarly-shaped siblings like group_remove, org_member_remove, or channel_remove, so an agent must infer the scope from the name alone.

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?

'Owner or admin:' gives an eligibility gate, which is useful usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as space_revoke (revoking access) or group_remove (removing from a group). The agent must infer when this is the right removal tool.

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