delete_cospend_member

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the conditional destructive behavior, the soft-disable fallback that preserves bill history, the permanent removal condition, and the permission requirement. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening, behavioral rules, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important operational nuance is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the permission requirement, the conditional outcome, both parameters, and the return shape. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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 Args section restates the parameter names and types ('String project id', 'Integer member id'), which is minimal compensation given 0% schema description coverage. It does not add deeper meaning beyond what the input schema already conveys through names and types.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete (or disable) a Cospend project member.' It adds meaningful nuance by distinguishing hard deletion from soft-disabling based on bills. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly states the required MAINTAINER access and explains when each behavior occurs: members with bills are soft-disabled, members without bills are permanently removed. It gives practical context for invoking the tool but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools like update_cospend_member.

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