delete_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses destructive intent and a concrete failure condition, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond 'delete'. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or effects on historical records, but the core safety/usability behavior 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraint; no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the identifier, and the main prerequisite/failure condition. It could add a note about permanence or related member records, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 only a member_id integer with no description (0% coverage), so the description's 'by member ID' is the sole semantic link between the parameter and the operation. It tells the agent which identifier to pass, though it adds no format or source guidance beyond that.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('member account'), and identifies the key ('member ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as delete_book and register_member.

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 an explicit when-not condition: the call fails if the member has active loans or unpaid fines, which tells an agent to pre-check or avoid deletion in those cases. It does not name alternative tools or a broader when-to-use policy, so it stops short of a 5.

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