remove_member

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: required scope `team:write`, the fact that the member retains their account and call history, and the limitation that managers cannot be removed via the API. The annotations declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description supplies the auth, side-effect, and eligibility details they do not.

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 points are front-loaded, but "DESTRUCTIVE: this cannot be undone" and "DESTRUCTIVE: cannot be undone" appear as two separate lines, duplicating a warning the annotations already carry once. That repetition costs space without adding information.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, permissions, eligibility, and data-retention effects. The only meaningful omission is the meaning/format of `id`.

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?

The single `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is a member ID, user ID, or email, nor how to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Remove a member from the team") stated up front, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling (e.g., list_members) to contrast with, but no sibling is plausibly confusable with a removal operation.

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?

"Only call it when the user explicitly asked for exactly this action" is an explicit, actionable gating condition, and "managers can't be removed via the API" defines a real exclusion. No alternative tool is named, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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