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

Annotations already indicate a destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the member loses access to every MCP in the account, and unaccepted invitations can be withdrawn. This goes beyond the raw annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 short sentences convey the main action, the invitation edge case, and the key consequence. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what happens, who is affected, and when the invitation path applies. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter fully, including the accepted formats (email or member id) and a pointer to list_members for disambiguation. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('remove someone from the account') and clearly distinguishes the invitation-withdrawal case from removing an active member. This differentiates it from sibling tools like invite_member, change_member_role, and delete_mcp.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: removing an existing member or withdrawing an unaccepted invitation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the two explicit use cases give enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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