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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint/idempotentHint, it discloses irreversibility ("a revoked key can't be un-revoked", "no reactivate"), what happens to the underlying row (hidden for attribution vs. hard-deleted for a never-authenticated stray), and the authorization model (agent carries principal's authority; admin refused an owner's or peer admin's agent). That is substantive behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its consequences, with sibling routing placed before the authorization nuance. It is dense — multiple parentheticals and stacked clauses — so it is slightly harder to scan than ideal, but nearly every clause carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, reversibility, data-retention outcomes, authorization preconditions, and the error mode for cross-org ids. Nothing an agent needs before calling 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds source and failure semantics: memberId comes from list_members/whoami and a member from another org yields NOT_FOUND. It does not add value-format detail, so it stops short of 5.

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 ("Retire an AGENT — the terminal offboard") and immediately enumerates the concrete effects: revokes keys, releases claim, removes from roster. It also explicitly distinguishes the resource class (agent vs. person) from the sibling suspend_member.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (terminal offboard, owner or admin), names the alternative for the other case ("For a PERSON use suspend_member instead"), and states the exclusion (retiring a human is rejected). This is a complete routing rule.

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