appwrite_delete_membership

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 mentions 'Remove' implying deletion, but fails to state that this is destructive/irreversible, does not mention what happens to the user's associated data, or whether the operation can be undone by re-inviting the member.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata leaking into the user-facing description, wasting precious front-loaded space without adding semantic value for the agent.

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 operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks safety warnings about data loss, does not explain the relationship between the three required identifiers, and provides no indication of success/failure behavior or side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate significantly. While 'team' and 'member' loosely map to team_id and membership_id, the critical 'site' parameter is completely unexplained (is it a domain, project ID, or instance name?). No parameter formats, constraints, or relationships are documented.

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 action (Remove) and resource (member from a team). It distinguishes from siblings like appwrite_delete_team by specifying 'member' rather than 'team', and from appwrite_create_team_membership by using 'Remove' versus 'Create'. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is extraneous metadata noise that slightly detracts from clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., appwrite_update_membership to change roles instead of removing), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring admin/owner permissions or that the member will lose access immediately.

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