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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what gets destroyed (the member's channels) and what is revoked (live authorizations that routed through them), plus the auth gating. This is the kind of cascade disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 tight paragraphs, with the destructive behavior front-loaded before the ACCESS note. Slightly redundant phrasing ('Authenticate this client ... then call this tool again') but nothing that wastes meaningfully.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cascade effects, and auth prerequisites. It stops short of stating reversibility, partial-failure behavior, or what a successful removal returns, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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% (both id and member_id documented with ID patterns), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource ('Remove a member from a Circle') and immediately discloses the cascading effects (channels deleted, live authorizations revoked). It is distinguishable from add_circle_member and invite_circle_member, though it does not explicitly contrast with remove_circle_member_channel.

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?

Provides an explicit authentication precondition (needs a Proof account; authenticate, then retry; start_login does not open this tool), which is actionable operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as remove_circle_member_channel or revoke_authorization, nor any when-not conditions.

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