Remove a project member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the removal revokes the user's roles/project access, whether it can be undone or re-added, what errors occur for an unknown id, or how it relates to projects_add_member. Note a mild tension between 'Removes' and destructiveHint=false, but readOnlyHint correctly marks this as a write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb and the disambiguating argument framing come first, so nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations present, no output schema), so little prose is strictly required. However, it omits the practical prerequisite of where a membership id comes from and the side effect of the member losing project access, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents the single parameter as 'Membership id (not a user id)'. The description's 'by its membership id' merely restates that, adding no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Removes) and resource (project membership) plus the identifying argument, so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like projects_add_member, projects_update_member, or projects_list_memberships, and it never says an update_member with empty roles is an alternative removal path.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'by its membership id' faintly implies the id must come from projects_list_memberships, but this is left entirely to inference, and no exclusion or edge-case guidance is provided.

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