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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral context beyond them: the area and its data remain intact, only access is revoked. That tells the agent what is actually destroyed and prevents overestimating the blast radius.

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?

The core guidance is front-loaded and efficient: remove access, check list_members, use toggle_member_flag for rights changes. The trailing EN keyword list ('member, participant, membership, team') is extraneous for invocation but does not obscure the main instruction.

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 tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, alternative tools, and the key consequence (access removed, data retained). With rich annotations and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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%, and the schema already explains that sp_id is a membership ID from list_members and that it removes only scope membership, not the user/account. The description reinforces checking list_members but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Ein Mitglied aus dem eigenen Bereich entfernen', revoke access) and immediately clarifies the scope: only access is removed while the area and its data remain. It also distinguishes the operation from 'toggle_member_flag', which changes rights instead of removing membership.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Nutze es beim Offboarding'), a prerequisite check ('Vorher list_members pruefen'), and a clear alternative for a different intent ('Nur Rechte aendern statt entfernen: toggle_member_flag'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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