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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: the operation deletes the login, it is irreversible, and it is gated on account-owner authorization. It also discloses which targets are rejected, so an agent can predict failure modes before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the destructive action and then layering constraints, irreversibility, and the alternative in decreasing order of importance. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: authorization, exclusions, irreversibility, and the safer alternative are all stated.

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 the single parameter member_id is documented there, including the pointer to list_team_permissions as its source. The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 and resource ("Remove um membro da equipe") and immediately clarifies the mechanism — it deletes the member's login, not just their access. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling update_team_member_permissions, which is named as the non-destructive alternative.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (only the account owner can call it), the exclusions (administrators and one's own account cannot be removed), and the preferred alternative for the softer case (update_team_member_permissions). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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