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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an owner-only auth requirement, an explicit user-instruction gate, and the cascading revocation of agent connections. It does not state irreversibility or what happens to the member's data, which is the remaining gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the permission constraint and side effect front-loaded before the invocation gate. Every clause carries distinct 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers permission level, invocation gate, and blast radius (agent connections). Missing only failure/irreversibility semantics, which keeps it below full marks.

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 50%: request_id's idempotency semantics come from the schema, not the description, and member_id is undocumented in both. The description does add the scoping context that the member is resolved against "the selected team" (no team_id parameter exists), which is useful, but it never clarifies the member_id format or source.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("remove a member from the selected team") plus the key side effect ("revoke their agent connections"), which distinguishes it from cancel_team_invitation in the sibling list. It stops just short of naming that sibling explicitly, so routing is inferable rather than stated.

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 two concrete preconditions: the caller must be an owner, and the action "Requires the user instruction" (i.e., explicit user request before invoking). No explicit when-not or named alternative (cancel_team_invitation for pending invites), which keeps it from a 5.

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