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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags 'high impact', explains the confirm gate (preview-only when false/omitted), and discloses the side effect that clients are handed to transferClientCoachId. It does not say what happens to clients when no transfer target is supplied, which is a real gap for a destructive-scale operation.

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?

Three clauses, front-loaded: action, impact, then the ownership exclusion and confirmation requirement. No filler, and the highest-risk information (high impact, confirmation) is positioned early.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must carry everything; it covers action, side effect, gating, and ownership exclusion. It is only missing the fallback behavior when transferClientCoachId is omitted and any permission prerequisites beyond 'not an owner'.

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 coverage is only 33% — only 'confirm' is documented in the schema — so the description must compensate. It does explain transferClientCoachId's effect ('clients are handed to ...') and reinforces the confirm semantics, but leaves organizationId and the no-transfer-target case unexplained.

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 ('Leave a gym as a coach') with the acting role scoped explicitly, and immediately distinguishes itself from transfer_organization_ownership by excluding owners. An agent can tell what this does and who it applies to without reading the 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Not for owners — transfer ownership first') naming the alternative action, plus a mandatory pre-call step ('get explicit confirmation before calling with confirm: true'). When to use, when not to use, and the prerequisite all appear in one sentence.

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