delete_team_member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond 'remove' — no note on whether removal is reversible, whether re-adding is possible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the member's assignments.

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 where one would do; the second is a near-verbatim restatement of the first. The purpose is front-loaded, but roughly half the text is redundant padding.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what operation it performs against team membership and whether the action can be undone. It supplies no behavioral or eligibility context, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.

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 schema is a single nested object, but both teamId and userId carry inline descriptions with the same wording as the description. The phrase 'using the team and user identifiers' confirms the two required keys but adds no format, type, or lookup guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a member from a team.' An agent can distinguish it from get_team_members and post_team_members, and from delete_team. However, the second sentence merely restates the first with the identifier names and adds no distinguishing scope, so it falls short of 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_team (removes the whole team) or post_team_members (the inverse operation). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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