beel_delete_member

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the description need not restate that. It adds a valuable behavioral constraint not in the annotations: the last OWNER cannot be removed. This is a meaningful addition that helps an agent anticipate a specific error condition. However, it does not mention other consequences (e.g., whether grants are cascaded or if the operation is reversible).

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 two sentences plus an endpoint line, with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the key constraint, and the endpoint is a terse, useful reference. Every line earns its place.

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 two-parameter delete operation with annotations already covering the destructive nature, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the action, the key restriction, and the endpoint. It could be more complete by noting that once a member is removed, their access is permanently revoked and related grants/associations may be affected, but the lack of an output schema makes this acceptable overall.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., account_id decides the target account, returns 403 on mismatch). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise action ('Removes a member's access to the account') with a clear resource and verb, and the endpoint line reinforces the resource. It is unambiguous and easily distinguishes itself from other member-related tools like beel_delete_member_grant (which removes a grant, not the membership itself).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that beel_delete_member_grant only removes specific permissions while this removes the entire membership, nor does it describe any prerequisites or conditions other than the last-OWNER restriction. The user must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and minimal description.

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