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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only the listed users are affected, other members remain attached, and a non-member UUID is a no-op (idempotency). It is silent on permission requirements and downstream effects, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a trigger condition and the key scope caveat. Every sentence carries information; the single-item bullet is slightly formal but costs almost nothing.

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, two-parameter operation with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope and no-op semantics well. It omits any note on required permissions or side effects of removing a member, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description merely restates that account_user_uuids holds the users to remove. No format, ordering, or batch-size semantics are added. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the burden.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove one or more account users from a team") that is instantly distinguishable from the inverse sibling attach-account-users-to-team. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary, so it stops just short of the top band.

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?

"Use this tool when: The user asks to remove people from a team" gives a concrete trigger condition, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops at 4 because it names no exclusion conditions or alternatives (e.g., how this differs from deleting a team or updating a team).

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