remove_circle_member_channel

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 discloses a non-obvious edge case: removing the last channel is allowed and makes the member unreachable. It also exposes an auth prerequisite and clarifies that start_login does not grant access to this tool, which is valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 operation comes first, followed by the edge-case behavior and the access prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple three-parameter removal operation with fully documented schema fields, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, the last-channel consequence, and the access setup. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap here because the tool's side effect and success condition are clearly described.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions and validation patterns for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema fully documents id, member_id, and channel_id.

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 action and resource: 'Remove a channel from a Circle member.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_circle_member and add_circle_member_channel, and the edge-case note reinforces the tool's function without obscuring it.

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 a clear trigger condition—use when a channel should be removed from a Circle member—and includes an explicit access note that PROOF_API_KEY must be set and that start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like remove_circle_member, but the implied usage is strong and the access caveat provides useful when-not guidance.

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