Remove a teammate

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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds the full blast radius: the member's own connections are disconnected, extra logins/authorizations removed, queued and self-scheduled posts suppressed, while the owner's connections are never touched. It even resolves an edge case (connections with no recorded owner are treated as the owner's).

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 its consequence are front-loaded, and every clause carries real information about the cascade. It is a dense single block, however, and could be easier to scan if broken into the destruction scope vs. the confirm flow.

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, cascading mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what is preserved, the edge case, the confirmation protocol, and what the dry-run returns. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the purpose and required sequencing of the 'confirm' parameter (dry-run first, then confirm:true), which the schema only labels 'REQUIRED true'.

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 and resource ('Remove a member from this profile by email') and immediately names the primary consequence (loss of access, re-invitable). An agent can distinguish it from invite_member and leave_connector without opening any 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step workflow: the unconfirmed call reports affected connections and scheduled posts, which the agent must relay, then call again with confirm:true. This is concrete when-to-call guidance rather than implied usage.

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