members_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the soft-delete behavior, data preservation, and login prevention. It also states exclusions (cannot deactivate self, owner, or super admins). This is good behavioral disclosure that exceeds the bare minimum for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value—the soft-delete nature, data preservation, and constraints are all packed efficiently.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides solid context: what the operation does, what it does NOT do (permanent deletion), and its constraints. The return value isn't specified but for a simple delete operation with a single uuid parameter, acceptable. No nested objects or complex behaviors need further explanation.

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 100% coverage with 'Member UUID to deactivate' for the uuid parameter, which is self-explanatory. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives, but given the single simple parameter and full schema coverage, the baseline 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Deactivate (soft-delete) a member from the organization.' It explicitly distinguishes soft-delete from hard delete by stating it preserves historical data. The tool name members_delete together with the description clearly identifies the action and differentiates from other member tools like members_update and members_list.

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 useful context about what deactivation entails (preserves data, prevents login), implying this is the right tool for removing access while keeping records. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when permanent removal is needed), but the soft-delete framing gives reasonable context.

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