remove_channel_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the permission model via the §88a reference, but says nothing about reversibility, whether the removed member loses history or membership state elsewhere, or what errors to expect — significant gaps for an unannotated destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the act comes first and the permission qualifier follows in a compact parenthetical.

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?

The output schema already covers return values, so the description needn't explain them, and it does cover the permission prerequisite. Still, for an unannotated mutation with two undocumented parameters it leaves gaps around parameter format and failure behavior.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether 'user' is an ID, email, or display name, nor whether 'channel' is a name or identifier, leaving the agent to guess invocation formats.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a member from a channel') and immediately narrows scope with the self-leave case, so an agent can distinguish this from add_channel_member and list_channel_members without opening any schema.

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 states the authorization condition under which the action is permitted (creator/mesh admin, or yourself to leave), which is clear usage context. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent toward or away from any named alternative tool.

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