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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive consequences: 'Deletes the member's channels and revokes any live authorizations that routed through them.' This is more transparent than a simple 'removes member' and gives the agent a concrete mental model of side effects. It does not mention irreversibility or response format, but the delete/revoke language is sufficient for a 2-param tool.

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 two sentences with a clear front-loaded action, followed by side effectsqb and then a necessary access note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, authentication prerequisite, and an explicit exclusion. The agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to execute the call correctly.

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 described ('Circle ID' and 'Member ID to remove'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema definitions are adequate for an agent to know what values to supply.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from a Circle.' It then clarifies the scope by listing consequences (deletes channels, revokes authorizations), which distinguishes it from add/invite/list circle-member tools. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 ACCESS section explicitly states a prerequisite (Proof account), instructs the agent to authenticate before retrying, and gives an exclusion: 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' This tells the agent when to call it and when not to route through start_login, which is clear usage guidance beyond the obvious purpose.

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