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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds two facts an agent needs: the action is reversible (the member can rejoin) and it requires moderator+ privilege. It omits what happens on permission failure or if the target is not present.

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, no waste, with the core action and its reversibility front-loaded before the permission note.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, reversibility, and privilege requirement. Only error/failure behavior is left unstated.

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% and both parameters already document their UUID format and source tools (mIRC_list/mIRC_create, mDM_list_contacts). The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a member from the channel.' The clause 'They can rejoin if not banned' implicitly separates it from mIRC_ban, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 prerequisite 'Requires moderator+' is useful, and 'can rejoin if not banned' hints that mIRC_ban is the escalation path, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated outright.

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