Prune members

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

The description goes beyond the destructive annotation by disclosing the two-phase behavior: the first call only counts members and returns a token, while the second call actually prunes. This adds essential context not present in the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and then explain the safe two-step process. No wasted words; the description earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral flow (preview-then-confirm) but does not specify the exact return format beyond mention of a count and token. Enough for a competent agent to operate correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm_token flow and implies the days parameter, but it does not clarify the dry_run boolean's relationship to the token flow, nor does it explain the reason parameter. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 tool removes members who are inactive for a given number of days and hold no roles. This precise verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like kick_member or ban_member, which target specific members.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool safely: the first call is a preview that returns a confirm_token, and the second call with the token performs the actual prune. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the two-step flow is practical usage guidance.

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