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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a meaningful guard not present in annotations: you cannot remove yourself or the account owner. It does not describe success/failure behavior or auth requirements, but the added constraint is valuable.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive mutation, the description pairs the action with the essential self/owner guard. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter; no output schema exists so return values need not be described. It is nearly complete, missing only optional context on side effects.

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%; the single parameter 'username' is already documented as 'Target member username.' The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Remove') and resource ('a user from the connected account'). The phrase 'connected account' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_project_member, but it does not name or explicitly contrast with any alternative tool.

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 only states a constraint ('Cannot remove yourself or the owner'), not when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_project_member or update_account_member_role. No usage context or exclusions are offered.

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