remove_circle_member

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by naming exactly what is destroyed: the member's channels and any live authorizations routed through them. It also states the auth requirement and the recovery step (set key and retry). This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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 sentences front-load the operation and its destructive scope, followed by a compact access block. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 two-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and access prerequisites, which is everything an agent needs to call it safely. Nothing material 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 both parameters (id, member_id) are already documented with patterns. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Remove a member from a Circle') and immediately scopes the effect (channels deleted, authorizations revoked). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_circle_member, remove_circle_member_channel, and delete_circle.

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 ACCESS block gives explicit prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, restart) and an exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). It does not, however, contrast use against close siblings such as remove_circle_member_channel or delete_circle, so full alternative-routing guidance is absent.

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