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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: approval requirements may be configurable by the administrator, and business workflow approvals always apply. It still does not explain the practical effect on the member's access or whether the membership can be restored.

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 the scope constraint front-loaded and the approval caveat following. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The presence of an output schema and destructive annotations reduces the description's burden, and the approval note adds useful context. However, for a destructive two-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the description still leaves the key identifiers unexplained and does not describe the membership-removal side effects.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description does not clarify whether memberId identifies a user, a membership record, or how projectId scopes the operation, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: remove an exact project membership, and explicitly distinguishes it from removing the user's organization account. It does not differentiate against close siblings such as remove_site_team_member or update_project_team_member, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It provides one useful exclusion — this is not for removing the organization account — but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like remove_site_team_member or update_project_team_member. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than fully stated.

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