Remove Organization Member

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'Remove' implies a destructive action consistent with annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., access revocation) or permissions needed, leaving some gaps despite annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent), and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks details on outcomes (e.g., confirmation message) or error cases, leaving some context gaps that could aid the agent.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a member from an organization'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_api_key' or 'dual_delete_face' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction about what makes this removal unique versus other deletion operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., member must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove last admin), or related tools like 'dual_list_org_members' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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