revoke_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose a real side effect: removing an agent seat revokes its API key once the last membership is gone. However, it omits whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it is idempotent, and what happens to other memberships or resources owned by the removed member.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary API-key consequence. The parenthetical '(human or agent)' is efficient disambiguation rather than 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It should at minimum state permission requirements, idempotency/reversibility, and the meaning of the optional projectId; the API-key note is a good start but not enough.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains userId (required) versus projectId (optional), nor what omitting projectId means—whether it defaults to a current/default project or is invalid. With two undocumented parameters, the description leaves the caller guessing.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') plus resource and scope ('a member (human or agent) from a project'), which clearly separates it from list_members, add_agent_seat, and invite_contributor. It also clarifies the entity type covered (human or agent), which is useful. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with near-neighbors like revoke_share_link, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. removing a seat, vs. invite/contributor flows) and no prerequisites such as required admin role. The only usage-adjacent content is a consequence note about agent seat API keys, which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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