anon_delete_members_user_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the member:manage authorization requirement, the self-removal prohibition, and that the project scope is inferred from the API key. It does not address reversibility or error behavior.

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?

Terse and front-loaded: the action, the permission requirement, and the self-removal constraint come first, followed by the endpoint and the project-scoping clarification. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is removed, the auth requirement, the self-removal guard, and the project-scoping assumption. Only the userId semantics and any failure/idempotency nuance remain unstated.

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 0% for the single nested path.userId parameter, so the description must carry the load. It usefully clarifies that no projectId is expected (project inferred from the API key) and shows userId in the path template, but it never explains what userId represents or its format.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("移除成员" / remove member) and pins it to a concrete endpoint (DELETE /api/projects/{id}/members/{userId}), which cleanly separates it from the sibling anon_patch_members_user_id (update) and the other delete tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It states the required permission (member:manage) and an explicit precondition/restriction (cannot remove yourself), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not name an alternative tool or describe failure/fallback paths, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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