remove_circle_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states destructive side effects: it deletes the member's channels and revokes live authorizations that routed through them. This is far more transparent than a generic 'remove member' statement and appropriately warns about irreversible consequences.

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 main behavior and side effects are front-loaded in the first sentence. The access note is separated and concise. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, the side effects, the access requirement, and a common pitfall. It could go slightly further by stating whether removal is permanent or describing the response, but the essential context for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 both 'id' and 'member_id' already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from a Circle.' It then details the two key consequences (deletes the member's channels and revokes live authorizations), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_circle_member_channel or 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 description gives clear practical usage context: it requires a Proof account, the PROOF_API_KEY environment variable, and a server restart. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a helpful when-not signal. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer a different circle member tool.

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