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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds the admin-only authorization context, but it says nothing about reversibility, side effects on existing Slack mappings, or error behavior when no match is found.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key authorization constraint. There is no wasted wording.

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?

This is a destructive administrative mutation with three parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema. The description supplies only the action and admin restriction, leaving important behavioral and parameter context unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'One team member' loosely implies the required user_id, but request_id and idempotency_key are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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: 'Remove one team member's Slack match.' It is clear enough to distinguish this from general Slack connection tools, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative yardstick_slack_member_set.

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?

The phrase 'Admins only' gives a useful permission constraint, implying this is a privileged administrative action. However, it does not explain when to choose unset versus set, what preconditions must hold, or what happens if no Slack match exists.

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