Remove a member (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, such as revoking access to all projects, dropping live sessions, refusing last-owner removal, and reconciling seat counts. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 sentences, each carrying necessary information: the core destructive action, the permission requirement and key failure case, and a post-condition. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 member-removal tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is destroyed, prerequisites, an error condition, and side effects. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents org and userId fully. The description does not need to add parameter details; it stays at the baseline without adding extra parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Remove a member from an organisation') and goes beyond the title by detailing concrete consequences: revoking project access and dropping live sessions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_member_role and invite_member.

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 description gives clear usage context: it requires the OWNER role and explicitly notes that removing the last owner is refused with a 409. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when to use set_member_role instead, but the preconditions and edge-case exclusion are clear.

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