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

Annotations already convey destructive and read-only hints, and the description adds meaningful context: the effect of revoking access, the administrative requirement, and the owner exclusion. It enriches the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the limitation. Every sentence 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, the description covers the required permissions, the scope of the action, the consequence (revoked access), and an edge case (owner cannot be removed). Combined with the output schema and fully documented parameter, nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, member_id, is already documented as 'Member ID to remove.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action (remove), the resource (a team member), the scope (workspace and its projects), and an important exception (cannot remove the owner). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_team_member and assign_team_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?

The description gives clear context by stating the precondition of account-wide administrative access and the limitation that the owner cannot be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool does the same removal operation, so the guidance is adequate.

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