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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the description's 'Remove' verb and leaves no contradiction. The description adds some scoping context ('one member', 'by email') but does not disclose any further side effects such as access revocation, reversibility, or permissions required. With the annotation already carrying the destructive signal, this level is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target are immediately clear.

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 two-parameter, single-actor mutation tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The schema provides full parameter documentation, destructiveHint covers the safety profile, and an output schema is present, so nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even if the description provided no additional parameter meaning. The description's 'by email' slightly reinforces the email parameter's role, but it does not add substantially beyond the schema's 'Member email address.' description.

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 ('remove'), a clear resource ('project member'), and the identifying method ('by email'). It is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like remove_org_member or upsert_project_member by specifying project membership.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when removing a single member from a project by their email address. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as remove_org_member or upsert_project_member, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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