linear_team_membership_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating, externally-visible nature is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'Remove' — no reversibility, idempotency, permission requirement, or effect on the member's other data is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely minimal for a destructive operation.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits any warning that this is a destructive removal with no undo, which would be the one piece of context worth adding.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('The membership's UUID.'), the schema fully documents the input. The description's mention of 'member' and 'team' adds only loose conceptual context and no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from a team'), making the operation unambiguous and distinguishable from the read-oriented linear_* siblings like linear_users_list. It does not, however, name any sibling or scope the team/membership context beyond the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other membership or user tools, no prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), and no note about alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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