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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses a major side effect: the last member removing themselves deletes the entire team. It also spells out the two guard errors (TEAM_OWNS_WORKSPACES, TEAM_HAS_PLAN) that block that cascade, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 dual mode, then authorization, then error semantics — a logical order with no filler. It is a single dense paragraph, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: identity of the actor allowed, dual member-vs-invite targets, cascading team deletion, and the specific error codes that abort it. Nothing material for correct invocation 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context, notably that an invite id comes from team_show, and restates the member identifier forms, but the schema already documents those forms in full.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Remove a member ... from a team') and adds a second mode (cancel a pending invite) with the identifiers each accepts. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like team_leave or team_delete, so an agent must infer which of the removal-family tools to use, keeping it below a 5.

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 states real preconditions: only the owner or the member themselves may remove, and only the owner or the inviter may cancel the invite. It also names two refusal codes tied to specific situations. What's missing is explicit routing language (e.g., 'to leave a team yourself, use team_leave').

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