buddypress_delete_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to the member's content (hinted by 'reassign' parameter but not explained), authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a member') with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (account removal? data retention?), the impact of the 'reassign' parameter, potential side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk of member deletion, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('id' as User ID, 'reassign' as User ID to reassign content to) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the 'reassign' parameter's purpose more explicitly.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a member'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buddypress_update_member' or 'buddypress_get_member' by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'member' in the BuddyPress context (e.g., user account vs. group member), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to use 'reassign' parameter versus other deletion methods. With sibling tools like 'buddypress_remove_group_member' and 'buddypress_update_member', clear differentiation is lacking.

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