remove_team_member

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses immediate suspension of API keys, refusal to remove the last active owner, the not_found error for unknown user_id, and the return value (removed: true with the removed user_id). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and parameter are stated first, followed by critical behavioral notes and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, 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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites, side effects, error cases, return value, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user_id. The description adds value by explaining the source of the ID (list_team_members) and the failure mode (not_found), which is helpful beyond the schema's minimal description. A 4 is appropriate because the description enriches the parameter meaning without being redundant.

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 ('Remove'), a specific resource ('one member from the caller's organization'), and the key parameter (user_id). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_team_member_role, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to remove a member) and when not to (use update_team_member_role to change access without removing). It also provides a prerequisite (admin API key) and a way to find IDs (list_team_members), giving clear context for selection.

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