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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining what 'destructive' means here — access is revoked entirely on invite-only projects but only reverts to workspace-role access on open ones. It does not mention permission requirements or self-removal behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two contextual cases. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps: no mention of who may perform the removal or what happens if the member is not a project member.

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 both member (UUID or email) and projectId documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 (Remove) and resource (a person's explicit access to a Stride project) with precise scope — 'explicit access' distinguishes it from role changes. An agent can distinguish it from stride.add_project_member and stride.update_project_member_role 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?

Explains the outcome in context: full revocation on invite-only projects vs. fallback to workspace role on open projects, which implies when this is the right tool vs. a role downgrade. It does not explicitly name update_project_member_role as the alternative for partial downgrades, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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