remove_circle_member_channel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the consequence of removing the final channel (the member becomes unreachable) and the authentication requirement with its remediation step — real behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 compact blocks: the operation plus its edge case first, then the access requirement. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the access paragraph is largely boilerplate that could be shorter.

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 3-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the key unknowns: the last-channel edge case and the account/API-key prerequisite. It is essentially complete, with only the response behavior left unspecified.

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% and all three parameters (id, member_id, channel_id) carry clear descriptions and ID patterns, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Remove a channel from a Circle member'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling add_circle_member_channel. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool, but the inverse verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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 supplies a genuine precondition (needs a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY, and start_login will not surface this tool) plus an edge-case rule that the last channel may be removed. However it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives like remove_circle_member, leaving the routing implicit.

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