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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful business rule — the organization owner cannot be removed — but says nothing about what else is destroyed (the user's authored prompts, segments, monitor assignments), whether the removal is reversible, or what error surfaces when the owner is targeted.

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 with zero filler; the operation is stated first and the constraint second. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and no sentence is disposable.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema to explain, the definition covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool. The remaining gap is the blast radius of a destructive call on the user's owned resources, which is a minor omission given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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%, with both integer parameters individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as whether organization_id must be an org the caller administers or whether user_id refers to a member vs. an external user.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Remove') with a specific resource and scope ('a user from an organization'), which distinguishes it from the sibling delete-organization-tool and update-user-tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the membership-scoped phrasing makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for removing a user from an org, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to update-user-tool for modifications or to other delete-* tools for adjacent resources. The one exclusion given (owner cannot be removed) is about preconditions, not tool selection.

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