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

Annotations already supply idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely new context: it clarifies the mutation is additive/isolated (doesn't touch team status), states the authorization requirement, and defines the return signal 'removed:false if the agent wasn't on the roster' for a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the idempotent/one-member distinction, with no filler. Every clause (scope, auth, return flag) carries distinct information.

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 usefully covers the return flag and the authorization/scope behavior for a destructive-but-idempotent mutation. The only residual gap is that team_id/agent_id semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 only 33% (only 'by' is documented in the schema), so the description bears most of the parameter burden. It reinforces that agent_id targets exactly one member, but adds nothing about the team_id/agent_id requirements beyond their self-evident names.

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 ('removal of ONE team member') and pins the scope precisely ('leaves the rest of the roster intact, never touches team status'). This implicitly differentiates it from bulk roster tools like set_team_roster and from add_team_member, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 mention of 'Same authorization as add_team_member' gives a concrete usage/authorization context, and 'leaves the rest of the roster intact' implicitly says this is the per-member tool rather than a roster-wide replacement. There is, however, no explicit when-not or named alternative for the whole-roster case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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