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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the scope and its data remain and only access is revoked, which clarifies the blast radius of a destructive action. It does not, however, mention the non-idempotent behavior (idempotentHint=false) or any permission/rate constraints.

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 scoping, then prerequisites and alternatives in short, purposeful sentences. Slightly dense and the trailing bilingual keyword list is metadata rather than instruction, but nothing is wasteful.

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-param destructive tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers scope of effect, prerequisite verification, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 schema itself documents sp_id richly (membership ID from list_members, removes only scope membership not the user/account, self-removal restriction). The description text adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (entfernen/remove) and resource (Mitglied/member) and immediately scopes the effect: only access is revoked, the scope and its data persist. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings toggle_member_flag and list_members, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 an explicit use case (offboarding), a prerequisite (check list_members first to hit the right person), and an alternative for the adjacent intent (toggle_member_flag to change rights instead of removing). When-to-use, when-to-check, and when-to-use-something-else are all present.

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