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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the account is not deleted, and admin/owner authorization is required. However, it does not mention potential side effects on the user's data, assignments, or memberships, which could be relevant for a mutation of this 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the two most critical behavioral constraints (no account deletion and admin/owner only). There is no wasted wording.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what it does, what it does not do, and who can use it. It could be improved by noting whether the removal is reversible or affects the user's resources, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'user', describing it as 'User name or email to remove from the organization'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action: remove a user from the organization, with the key distinction that the account is not deleted. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_user and remove_team_member, and it also specifies the permission requirement (Admin/owner only).

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it removes from the current organization without deleting the account, which implicitly contrasts with delete_user. It also sets the usage prerequisite of admin/owner. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of a full usage guideline.

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