delete_membership

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: the action cannot be undone, inherited group roles remain, only direct roles are removed, and the call is rejected if all roles are inherited.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and irreversibility front-loaded, followed by the nuanced group-role behavior. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 destructive membership mutation, the description provides the essential warning and the group-role edge case. The preview/approval flow is handled by the schema, and no output schema is present, so the definition is nearly complete, with only minor missing context about alternatives.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so membership_id and the preview/confirm workflow are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 specific verb and resource: delete a project membership, and immediately clarifies irreversibility. It is easily distinguishable from siblings such as update_membership, create_membership, and list_project_memberships.

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 deletion use case is clear, and the rejection condition when all roles are inherited is useful. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against update_membership or other management alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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