Remove team member

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Permanently remove,' adding irreversibility context. It also specifies the tool operates only on non-owner members, an important behavioral constraint. This adds value beyond the annotation by clarifying the scope limitation and permanent nature, though it could mention cascading effects.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose and the critical usage caution are both delivered efficiently with appropriate front-loading.

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?

Despite having no output schema or rich annotations, the description plus good schema covers the key aspects: what it does (permanently remove), who it applies to (non-owner), and the safety requirement (confirm intent). For a simple 3-parameter tool with 67% schema coverage, this is adequately complete, though it could mention permission prerequisites.

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 67% (member_id and project_id have descriptions, idempotency_key has none). The description adds the 'non-owner' constraint relevant to member_id, which is useful, and project_id schema reference to list_projects is already present. idempotency_key semantics are not elaborated in the description, so the 33% uncovered remainder isn't compensated.

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 + resource + scope: 'Permanently remove a non-owner project member.' It distinguishes scope by restricting to non-owner members, which differentiates from sibling update_team_member_role and list_team_members. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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 second sentence instructs to 'Confirm the user's intent before calling this tool,' which provides an important usage caution appropriate for a destructive operation. It doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative member-management tools (like update_team_member_role), but the confirmation guidance is clear practical context.

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