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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real substance beyond that: revocation is immediate, the person's AI app access is also terminated, alerting stops, and one edge case (owner address) is rejected. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the consequences, then the constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is pad.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, timing, edge case, and ID provenance. It doesn't say whether the removal is reversible or how to re-add the person, which would complete the picture for a destructive tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single `id` is identified as a person's id sourced from get_overview's `team`, and the owner-address exclusion narrows what values are valid. Format details (e.g., whether it's an email or opaque ID) are still left implicit, keeping it below a 5.

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 ("Take a person off the team") and goes further, spelling out the concrete consequences: loss of access, loss of the AI app, and stopped alerts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with save_team_member, but the destructive action is unambiguous against that sibling.

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 concrete operational guidance: the `id` comes from get_overview's `team` list, and the account owner's own address cannot be removed. What's missing is an explicit when-not-to-use note (e.g., prefer a role change or pause over removal), but the context for a correct call is clear.

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