Remove a team member

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

Annotations already mark it destructive, but the description adds meaningful context: revocation covers every secret in the organization and is irreversible, requiring re-invitation. This goes beyond the structured annotation by specifying scope and permanence.

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?

Three compact sentences: action and consequence first, irreversibility second, and the usage guardrail third. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema descriptions and a destructive annotation, the description covers the action, consequences, irreversibility, and the agent's go/no-go condition. No output schema means return-value documentation isn't required.

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%, and both member and confirm are already well described in the input schema. The description's phrase about reading the email back reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose but doesn't add new parameter semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: removes a member from the organization and revokes access to every secret. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oneguard_teams_invite and oneguard_teams_set_role.

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?

It gives an explicit go/no-go condition: only call after the user explicitly asked for this specific person to be removed, and read their email back first. It does not name alternative tools for non-removal scenarios, so it lacks explicit alternative routing.

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