Remove a member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing that the call is a no-op without confirm: true and that there is no server-side dry run, meaning the preview is purely client-side — context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The identity of the operation comes first and the critical execution gate is front-loaded in caps, which is exactly the right emphasis for a destructive tool.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the endpoint, and the confirm gate. It stops short of stating whether removal is permanent/reversible or what side effects occur (audit entries, cascading access loss), which would fully close the gap for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema itself already explains confirm ('Set true to execute... a preview of the request is returned') and idempotencyKey. The description mostly echoes the confirm semantics while adding the 'no server-side dry run' nuance; it adds nothing about the `id` parameter, so it sits at the schema-driven baseline rather than above it.

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 member') and pins it to the REST endpoint DELETE /v1/members/{id}, which unambiguously separates it from members_list, members_update, and members_audit. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, but the destructive verb makes the boundary self-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 confirm-gating sentence tells the agent how to actually trigger the write, which is useful operational guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as members_update (deactivate/role change) or invites_revoke, and no prerequisites or permission requirements are mentioned.

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