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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the lasting ban on re-application/re-invitation, the requirement to read the target identity back to the user before acting, and permission edge cases (owner cannot be removed; removing an ADMIN requires the owner; certain alliance/official roles are exempt). Only the return/response behavior is unaddressed.

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 permission gate and the primary side effect, then structured into 组合链 and 口径/坑 blocks. Dense but each caveat is load-bearing; slightly heavy but no filler text.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation with only two fully documented params, the description covers prerequisites, irreversible consequences, workflow, and role-specific edge cases – enough for an agent to call it correctly without further context.

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 the schema already states membershipId is the relationship id from list_organization_members (not userId). The description alludes to the same chain via the workflow hint but adds no parameter detail beyond the structured schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('把一位成员移出组织') and immediately distinguishes it from the self-exit sibling ('自己退出用 leave_organization'). An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (需要登录·OWNER/ADMIN), a full workflow chain (list_organization_members → 用户确认 → this tool), and explicit when-not-to-use routing to leave_organization. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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