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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: asset reassignment to transfer_to or the caller, loss of the Pro seat, and a permission model. It stops short of noting reversibility or whether email confirmation is required.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, consequences, permissions), with the core purpose front-loaded. 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences, permission gates, and parameter behavior well. Missing only edge cases such as whether the member is notified or whether the operation can be undone.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it clarifies that transfer_to covers teams and folders (schema only mentions 'flows') and defines the fallback recipient as the caller when transfer_to is omitted.

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 and resource ('Remove a person from an organization'), and the consequences make the scope unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like remove_team_member, remove_collaborator, or remove_external_collaborators.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains who is allowed to act (owner vs admin) but never says when to choose this over remove_team_member or remove_collaborator, nor when removal is the wrong action versus revoke_invite or leave_organization.

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