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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the required owner/admin role, the constraint that the owner cannot be removed, and the destructive side effect that all shares involving the target member are removed. These are exactly the details an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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 critical routing constraint and permission requirement are front-loaded, and the Args/Returns blocks are compact. Every sentence earns its place, and the return-value note is useful given no output schema exists.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization, an excluded case, a cascading side effect, parameter disambiguation, and the return shape. Nothing needed 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by disambiguating member_id as a 'FamilyMember ID (not user ID)' and pointing to where it is found ('the group's members list'). This prevents a realistic and costly confusion between the family-member identifier and the user identifier.

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 ('Remove a member from your family group'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from a generic delete. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings such as leave_family_group or revoke_family_invitation, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 clear preconditions for use ('Requires owner or admin role') and an exclusion ('The group owner can't be removed'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed or fail. It stops short of naming alternative tools for related operations, so there is no explicit routing guidance.

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