remove_team_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what changes (team-targeted scope grants stop applying) and what does not (personal org membership), but it omits permissions, reversibility, required role, and error behavior for a mutation operation.

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?

The core action and scope caveat are front-loaded, but the description is padded with promotional copy about Kiln Business and an upgrade link. The plan requirement is relevant, but the marketing sentence does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the intended effect and plan gating, but it lacks role/auth requirements, parameter semantics, reversibility, and failure behavior. It is minimally usable but incomplete.

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%, and the description never explains team_id or tenant_id beyond the nouns 'team' and 'tenant'. It does not state where these identifiers come from, their format, or any constraints, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 a tenant from a team.' It also clarifies an important scope distinction, that personal org membership is unaffected, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as manage_team_member, add_team_member, or revoke_scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of what stops applying, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like manage_team_member or revoke_scope. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated beyond the plan requirement.

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