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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description complements that by specifying exactly what is destroyed: only the grant for one company, while other company grants are preserved. It adds meaningful scope context beyond the raw destructiveHint flag, though it does not discuss reversibility or error behavior.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the key action and scope, followed by a useful endpoint reference. Every sentence contributes: the first defines behavior, the second clarifies non-destructive scope, and the third provides the HTTP mapping.

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 simple three-parameter destroy operation with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the definition is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any response or error semantics beyond the 403 already noted in the account_id parameter, but this does not critically impair correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description's endpoint template helpfully maps the parameter names to path segments, but it does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Revokes a MEMBER's access to one company.' It clearly distinguishes this from deleting the member entirely by stating that grants over other companies are unaffected. The endpoint further reinforces the exact operation.

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 description provides clear context: this tool revokes a member's grant for a single company only, leaving other grants intact. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like beel_put_member_grant or beel_delete_member, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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