Remove a member

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

Annotations already indicate destructive action, but the description adds important nuance: votes and ratings remain attached to past weeks, and the owner cannot be removed. This qualifies what 'destructive' means for this tool and warns about a key failure condition, though it does not describe error behavior or confirmation.

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 concise: two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the essential caveats following. No redundant phrasing, and every sentence adds value.

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, one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key behavioral constraints that matter: preservation of votes/ratings and the owner restriction. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Minor omissions like 'not found' behavior or irreversibility beyond the destructive hint are acceptable.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies that the single 'name' parameter identifies the household member to remove. This is sufficient for a single self-explanatory parameter, though it lacks detail on name matching or behavior when no member matches.

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 names a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('household member'), identifies the parameter basis ('by name'), and adds two clarifying constraints (votes/ratings persist; owner cannot be removed). This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like get_members and upsert_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?

The usage is implied: use to delete a member by name. The owner restriction is a meaningful limitation, but the description does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use the tool, leaving some ambiguity in routing.

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