delete_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 highlights the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a delete tool. It does not mention other aspects like permissions or error handling, but the key trait is covered.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and the critical caveat of irreversibility. No redundant information is present, and the parenthetical contrast adds value without extra words.

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 delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: the operation is permanent and contrasts with archive. It doesn't detail return values or edge cases, but the core behavioral context (irreversibility) is clearly communicated.

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 includes descriptions for both parameters (email and list_id) covering 100% of them. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Permanently delete a member from an audience') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'archive_member' by explicitly noting irreversibility, making its unique purpose evident.

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 provides clear usage context by contrasting with 'archive' (reversible), implying that delete is used when permanent removal is desired. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate when/not to use, the contrast offers practical guidance for choosing between delete and archive.

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