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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that open issues can be reassigned in the same call, which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by the schema or annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and no unnecessary fluff. It effectively communicates the main effect and the optional reassignment in a minimal, well-ordered manner.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: the removal action and the optional reassignment. The annotations handle the destructive flag. It could mention irreversibility or prerequisites, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (person, reassignTo) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description's mention of reassignment is already implied by the reassignTo parameter description, so it adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a member from the workspace entirely'), and it distinguishes itself from similar tools like remove_team_member by emphasizing the workspace-wide scope. The additional note about reassigning issues clarifies the tool's full purpose without ambiguity.

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 it: when a member must be fully removed from the workspace. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., remove_team_member) or provide exclusions (e.g., if the member has critical unresolved work). This is a clear context but lacks explicit routing to alternatives.

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