delete_member_permanent

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds crucial behavioral details: irreversibility, permanent deletion of personal data, prevention of re-import, and differences from archive deletion. It also notes behavior under dry-run and read-only modes, exceeding annotation coverage.

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 well-structured: starts with a bold warning, then comparison, usage notes, parameter descriptions, and return value explanation. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Despite lack of schema descriptions and output schema details, the description provides complete context: purpose, behavioral traits, parameter guidance, return value (JSON confirmation/error, HTTP 204), and prerequisites (obtain list_id from list_audiences). Works well with annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: explains list_id format (10-char alphanumeric, example), email_address (hash derived automatically), and account (optional, configuration reference). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare 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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes an audience member, using the verb 'erase' and specifying 'GDPR-style deletion'. It distinguishes from the archive-style 'delete_member' tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use ('unless a true GDPR erasure is required') and when not to, referencing the alternative 'delete_member'. It also mentions authentication, concurrency limits, and dry-run mode, providing comprehensive usage context.

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