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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral clarification that the person remains in the workspace, which is valuable scope context beyond annotations. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects, but given the annotation coverage this is sufficient.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The main action and the critical scoping detail are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It explains the core action and key distinction (workspace retention). While it omits potential edge cases, the schema and annotations fill the gaps, making this complete enough for correct invocation.

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 'team' and 'person' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, 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 ('Take a person off a team') and the specific resource scope. It also adds a distinguishing clause, 'They stay in the workspace,' which differentiates this tool from siblings like remove_member. This allows an agent to select it correctly without inspecting other schemas.

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 phrase 'They stay in the workspace' implies this is for team-level removal only, hinting that remove_member would be used for workspace removal. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this versus add_team_member or remove_member, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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