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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral requirement not present in the annotations: that explicit confirmation must occur before removal, which explains the gating semantics. It still omits what is destroyed (team membership vs. the account), permission requirements, and reversibility.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key precondition front-loaded at the end of the action statement. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves the sentence doing less work than the tool's risk profile warrants.

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 explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. Still, for a destructive membership mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description should say more about the confirmation gate and the identity parameters.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description implicitly conveys the semantics of the 'confirmed' flag ('after explicit confirmation') but says nothing about teamId or userId, leaving the identity parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Names a specific verb (remove) and resource (team member), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_team, leave_team, and update_team_member_role. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from those alternatives in the text.

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 'after explicit confirmation' gives a real precondition for invocation, which is useful. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., leave_team for self-removal, update_team_member_role for role changes) or stating who is permitted to remove a member.

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