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

Although annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: removal also clears the waiting queue, existing key/conversations/quota/paid access survive, and future coordination requires re-attachment. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and then add the non-destructive side effects. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive action, the description covers scope, preserved data, and re-attachment, which is enough for an agent to operate safely. It does not mention return/confirmation behavior, but no output schema exists and the safety profile is already supplied by annotations.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description only indirectly implies that agent_id is the member to remove and that the team is the one controlled via team_key. It does not explicitly map the two parameters or explain team_key's authorization role in 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?

The description names a specific action ('Remove one member') and explicit targets: 'a team you control and its waiting queue.' It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like speedbot_team_attach or speedbot_team_create.

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?

It sets a clear prerequisite ('a team you control') and explains the consequence that re-attaching is needed later. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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