Delete Project Member

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: the operation cannot be undone, and it requires a confirmation step—either interactive prompting or a second call with confirm:true after reviewing a preview. This explains the mechanism and irreversibility, adding significant value beyond the structured annotations.

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 long, with the primary action front-loaded and essential caveats (irreversibility, confirmation flow) following in a compact, structured manner. Every sentence 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 destructive delete operation, the description fully covers the action, irreversibility, and the two-step confirmation process. With no output schema and simple parameters, there are no significant information gaps.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (id and confirm), including the confirmation behavior. The description repeats this but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the 100% schema coverage carries the semantic load, matching the baseline score.

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 action: 'Delete a membership by id.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from membership_get, membership_update, and other membership operations. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 provides clear context for use: to delete a membership by id, with a confirmation workflow that must be followed. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the action and resource are unambiguous.

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