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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares this is destructive, that sessions and API keys stop working immediately in this workspace, and that the owner is protected. The immediacy of the effect is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before invoking a write operation, though auth/permission failure modes are left implicit.

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?

One tight sentence with three clauses, each earning its place: who can act, the self-removal case, the owner guard, and the consequence. Front-loaded with the action and zero filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior alone – and it covers the key facts (permissions, owner protection, immediate session/key revocation). Given only two required parameters, the main remaining gap is that neither parameter is described anywhere, but that is a minor omission relative to the behavioral coverage.

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% – neither accountId nor workspaceId has documentation in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter (which account, which workspace, whether accountId is the target member), so an agent gets no help resolving the two required UUIDs.

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 (remove) and resource (member), and layers in who may perform it (admins, or the member themselves). The scope is clear enough to distinguish from members_update/members_transfer, though it never names the nearest sibling members_revoke, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 real usage context: admins can remove others, any member can remove themselves to leave. It also states a precondition (the owner cannot be removed). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use rule, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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