Delete Community Member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a state-change note and the confirm gate, but much of that duplicates the confirm parameter's own schema description, and it says nothing about permissions/scope of destruction beyond "changes community state."

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?

Only two short sentences, so it is compact, but the first sentence is pure title repetition that does not earn its place. The useful content (state change, confirm requirement) is present but not the front-loaded element.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations convey the essential safety profile and the confirm requirement. It is minimally adequate but omits the sibling disambiguation (remove_member/ban_community_member) and any note on reversibility or scope that would make the delete decision safe.

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% and the schema itself documents all three parameters (account, confirm, member_id), including the credential-selection nuance for account. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The second sentence identifies the effect ("Changes community state") and the verb/resource is unambiguous (delete a community member), but the opening sentence "Delete Community Member" is a verbatim restatement of the title/name. Critically, it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings such as remove_member, ban_community_member, or delete_member_tag, which an agent could easily confuse with a member deletion.

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 only guidance is the conditional "requires confirm=true for the user-requested action," implying this is a user-confirmed destructive action. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative statement, and the obvious competing tool remove_member is never mentioned, so routing remains inferred rather than guided.

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