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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context: what survives the destructive act ("The buyer seat stays") and the auth prerequisite (active Whimbrel key). It does not say whether a released teammate can be re-added or what state the member is left in.

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?

Four short telegraphic sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints following. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, non-effect, scope, prerequisite).

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 with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies action, scope, non-effect, and auth needs. It omits error/failure behavior and reversibility, which are minor but real gaps.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the member id/email and the buyer-seat restriction. The description's "buyer seat stays" only reinforces what the schema says, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Removes a teammate from this Seat plan") and clarifies scope boundaries by noting the buyer seat is unaffected, which separates this from a hypothetical buyer-removal operation. It never names add_seat, the natural sibling counterpart, so it is clear but does not explicitly route against alternatives.

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?

"Seat plans only, buyer only" functions as an explicit precondition/exclusion, telling the agent when this tool is valid and when it is not. It also states the auth requirement (active Whimbrel key). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for non-seat plans.

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