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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the two key traits: an auth requirement ('the request must be signed with the Authority's key') and the destructive effect ('removes the member file entirely'). It stops short of idempotency, failure behavior, or irreversibility guarantees, which would matter for a deletion 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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first clause, then the invocation context and the state-change consequence. No filler sentences and no repetition of the tool title.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers who may invoke it, what authorization is required, and what state change results, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only failure/edge-case behavior is left implicit.

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 only two parameters, both documented in the schema. The description reinforces the actor/key constraint on authority_npub but adds no format, syntax, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Remove) and resource (Operator from the DPYC community registry), and the follow-up sentence clarifies the scope of removal (member file entirely, return to initial state). This clearly separates it from register_operator, update_operator and renounce_membership without opening any sibling 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?

States the triggering condition and actor: 'Called by an Authority when the operator leaves it or the Authority disowns the operator.' That gives real context for selection, but it never names the alternatives (e.g. renounce_membership for the member-initiated path) or says when not to call it.

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