Deactivate a community member

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'changes community state' and enforces a confirm gate, but the confirm requirement is also spelled out in the schema, so the marginal disclosure is modest. Reversibility and the fate of the member's data remain unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operational constraint; no filler. It is tight, though the second sentence largely restates the schema's confirm guidance rather than adding new information.

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 covers the action and the confirmation gate but omits reversibility, required permissions/scope, and what happens to the member's content. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the agent still lacks enough context to reason about consequences.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the 'confirm' gate ('Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action'). The description repeats the confirm requirement rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the 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 + resource ('Deactivate a community member') and usefully disambiguates the ambiguous tool name 'remove_member' by clarifying the action is deactivation, not deletion. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ban_community_member or delete_community_member, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action'), which is actionable. However, it never states when to prefer this over ban_community_member, delete_community_member, or remove_from_access_group, leaving the agent to infer sibling selection from names alone.

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