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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the persistent effect that re-application and re-invitation are blocked after removal, the auth/role requirements, and three named permission edge cases that determine whether the call succeeds.

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-loads the auth requirement and effect, then organizes the rest under clear tags (composition chain, rules/pitfalls). It is dense and slightly long, but each block earns its place with a distinct routing or safety fact.

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?

Given no output schema and a two-parameter mutation, the description covers everything an agent needs: permission gate, persistent side effect, pre-call confirmation step, source of the membershipId, and the edge cases that cause failure.

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%, so the schema already documents both organizationId and membershipId, including the warning that membershipId is not userId. The description's composition-chain hint overlaps with the schema's own text, so it adds little on top of a baseline 3.

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+resource (remove a member from the organization) and immediately scopes it with the required role (OWNER/ADMIN). It explicitly distinguishes itself from leave_organization for the self-removal case, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Provides an explicit composition chain (list_organization_members to get membershipId, then user confirmation, then this tool), names the alternative (leave_organization) and the condition that selects it, and states the when-not cases (owner cannot be removed, official sub-account principals cannot be removed).

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