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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond that: the settlement precondition and the human confirmation requirement. It stops short of describing consequences (e.g. what happens to the removed member's history) or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, then the alternative and confirmation note. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers preconditions, the alternative tool and the confirmation requirement, which is most of what an agent needs; the remaining gap is disambiguating the target-member parameter.

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 only 33% – only idempotency_key is documented. The description implies what group_id and agent mean ('another member from a group you belong to') but does not explain the agent field's two accepted shapes (agent_id vs handle) or how to identify the target, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

Specific verb (remove) plus resource (another member from a group you belong to), with the self-removal case explicitly carved out. It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling leave_group, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool (leave_group) and the condition that selects it, and states a hard precondition (target must be settled: zero balance, no pending payments) plus a required confirmation step. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance rather than implied usage.

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