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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description earns credit for adding what they don't say: the owner-only permission requirement and the immediate loss of access to all company documents. It could still spell out whether the action is reversible or whether re-adding restores access, but the added context is substantive.

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 short sentences, with the action stated first and the consequence front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey consequences and permissions, which it does. The main remaining gap is whether the removal is reversible or what happens to that member's in-flight work.

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% and each parameter (company, user_id, confirm) is documented there, including the confirm-double-typing safeguard. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond an implicit hint that user_id must come from list_members, so baseline 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 and resource ('Take away a member's access to a company') that is unambiguously distinct from siblings like add_member, set_member_role, and remove_invitation. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 'owner-only' prerequisite is a useful gating condition, and 'destructive' signals caution. However, it never names the adjacent alternatives (demote via set_member_role, revoke a pending invite via remove_invitation) or when NOT to use this tool, so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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