Remove member

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: the admin-only authorization requirement, the reversibility property (member may rejoin), and the explicit non-effect ("Their posts stay"). For a destructive operation, telling the agent what survives is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the two use cases and the permission gate, which is the right ordering. Phrasing like "as Membership settings, Remove does" and "the same way, as Unban does" is slightly verbose UI-referencing filler that could be trimmed.

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 destructive admin tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs before calling: permissions, blast radius (one member), reversibility, and side-effect boundaries (posts retained). Return-value behavior is the only untold piece and is minor here.

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 `group` and `membership_id` documented including where membership_id comes from (list_members). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the singular scope ("one member"), so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema carries the load.

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 + resource ("Remove a member from the group") and immediately covers the second use case (lifting a ban), which is the one place an agent could misroute to ban_member. The verb+resource+scope combination makes the tool distinguishable from its siblings 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 clear operating context: admins only, one member at a time, and the outcome that distinguishes it from a ban (they lose access but may ask to join again). It stops short of saying "use ban_member instead if you want to prevent rejoining," so the alternative is implied rather than named.

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