ghost_delete_member

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state 'permanently', implying irreversibility, which is a key behavioral fact. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., removal of associated data), permission requirements, or error conditions, leaving a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the action and resource. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple single-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not explain the outcome (no output schema), potential consequences, or when to prefer this over related member tools, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the only parameter ('id' with a description of '24 hex characters'), and the tool description adds no further semantics about the id or its use. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('member') with an explicit qualifier ('permanently'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling delete tools (e.g., ghost_delete_tag, ghost_delete_post) by naming the member as the target.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghost_update_member or ghost_list_members. It does not provide context for deletion decisions, prerequisites, or cautionary notes, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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