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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the auth requirement (owner-only), the immediacy of the effect ('revoked immediately'), and the blast radius (team tools/limits revoked, personal account unaffected). It stops short of stating reversibility or what the call returns, but the safety-critical behavior is covered.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the hard constraint ('Owner-only') front-loaded ahead of the mechanics and the impact statement. Every clause carries information.

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, 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions, effect timing, scope of impact, and ID sourcing. Only the irreversibility/confirmation contract and error behavior are left implicit.

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 50%: confirm is fully documented in the schema, but member_user_id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by naming the source of that id (get_org_status), which is the genuinely useful addition, but adds no format or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this coverage level.

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+resource (removes a member) plus the identifier used to do it, and clearly distinguishes itself from invite_org_member and get_org_status. An agent can select this over its siblings without opening any 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?

Declares the prerequisite explicitly ('Owner-only') and routes the agent to get_org_status to obtain the required user id. It lacks an explicit when-not clause, but the context is unambiguous for a single-purpose removal tool.

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