Delete Member

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the word 'permanently,' which reinforces the destructive nature but is largely redundant with the annotation. It does not disclose additional side effects (e.g., associated data removal) beyond what annotations already imply, so with annotations present, the added value is minimal.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides an alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter, rich annotations (destructive, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, the identifier format, and the alternative approach. There is no missing context that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'id' with description 'Member id or slug,' so the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. The phrase 'by id or slug' in the description simply repeats the schema's parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 story by id or slug.' It names the specific verb (delete), the resource (member story), and the identifier type (id or slug). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_letter or delete_episode, and the contrast with update_member clarifies its unique scope.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance with an alternative: 'Prefer update_member with published: false if you only want to hide it.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to choose instead, making the decision boundary very clear.

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