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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete impact that annotations cannot convey: organization tokens stop working and devices lose server access. It does not state whether the removal is reversible, whether it requires confirmation beyond the approval token, or how long revocation takes to propagate.

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 clauses with zero filler; the core action plus its consequence are front-loaded and the second sentence exists only to convey impact. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description covers the action and its side effects, and the schema covers both parameters including the approval-retry protocol. Missing only permission requirements and reversibility, which an agent would likely need for a destructive operation.

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 100%, with both 'member' and the retry-only 'approval' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or disambiguation detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Remove a member') that an agent can immediately distinguish from org_member_ls and org_member_role via the name's org_member_ prefix. The consequence sentence reinforces what the operation is, though it never explicitly says the member belongs to the organization.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as org_member_ls or org_invite_revoke, and no prerequisites (e.g. required admin role, whether the member must be invited first). The only usage-adjacent information is the approval flow, which lives in the schema's parameter description rather than the tool description.

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