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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations – that task assignments persist after removal – but says nothing about permissions required, side effects on time entries or billing, or whether removal is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most important side effect. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 and 0% parameter documentation, the description is thinner than ideal. It covers the key downstream consequence (task reassignment) but leaves identifier semantics and permission prerequisites unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies what projectId refers to, nor whether teamMemberId is a user id or a project-member record id – a distinction that matters given both list_team_members and list_project_members exist.

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 names a specific verb ('Remove') and resource pair ('team member from a project'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from add_project_member and update_project_member in the sibling list, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_project_member or list_project_members, no prerequisites (e.g. admin/owner role needed), and no note about what happens if the member is not in the project. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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