Remove Micro project member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true and idempotentHint true, so the mutation is disclosed. The description adds useful context by restricting to non-owner accounts and emphasizing exact matching, but it does not explain side effects or the explicit confirmation requirement beyond the schema.

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 no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key constraints (exact, non-owner, access revocation) are packed efficiently.

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 core behavior is well covered by the description and annotations: destructive, idempotent, non-owner revocation. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is unnecessary. Some operational context, like what happens if the account does not exist or is an owner, is left out, but overall it is sufficient for a focused member-removal tool.

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 67%, with accountId lacking a textual description. The description fills that gap by clarifying that accountId refers to an existing non-owner member's account, adding meaning beyond the format/pattern constraints. It also relates 'linked project' to the path parameter, though less explicitly.

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 uses the precise verb 'Revoke' and identifies the resource as 'access to the linked project' for a specific non-owner account. It clearly states the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like micro_member_set or micro_invitation_revoke.

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?

The intended use is implied by the phrasing 'revoke ... access' – an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose, such as micro_member_set for role changes or micro_invitation_revoke for pending invitations.

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