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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the Owner/Admin-only permission constraint, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not describe side effects or irreversibility, but the annotation covers the destructive nature.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and permission context. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple two-parameter destructive action with annotations and a full schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and who can do it. The presence of an output schema and clear parameter descriptions reduces the need for more detail. Minor lack of explicit return behavior or consequences is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters (userId, guildId) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema already fully explains them.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'member from the guild', clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like set_guild_member_role or remove_co_gm. The action is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 that this operation is restricted to Owner/Admin, indicating who may use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., remove_co_gm) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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