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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: login requirement, OWNER/ADMIN gating, the downstream effect that re-applications and re-invitations are blocked, and hard guards (owner not removable, ADMIN removal owner-only, protected official/host/alliance-leader entries). This is exactly the destructive-operation context the annotations omit.

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?

Dense but zero-waste: permission requirement is front-loaded, the call sequence uses arrows, and each remaining clause covers a distinct guard. It is slightly crowded with multiple rule fragments in one block, but nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, sequencing, confirmation, role escalation rules, and all known non-removable cases. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by specifying that membershipId is obtained from list_organization_members and must be confirmed with the user before use, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('把一位成员移出组织') and immediately separates it from the two nearest alternatives by name: leave_organization for self-exit and the implicit contrast with invite/list siblings. An agent can tell exactly which operation this performs without opening 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?

It gives an explicit workflow ('list_organization_members 拿 membershipId → 用户确认 → 本工具'), a mandatory user-confirmation step, and named when-not cases ('不能移出自己——自己退出用 leave_organization'). Permission preconditions (OWNER/ADMIN) are front-loaded in brackets.

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