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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive detail beyond them: which related objects are destroyed (all grants), the downstream effect on existing access controls, the 204 response, and the required auth scope. That is exactly the behavior an agent needs before executing an irreversible 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive consequence before the response code and auth requirements. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no repetition of the annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return code (204), the full blast radius of the deletion, and the authorization prerequisites. For a destructive three-parameter tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 the identifier, account, and workspace parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (e.g., how to obtain a team_… identifier via pm_list_teams), so it does not exceed that baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a team") and immediately scopes it with the cascade effect on grants and access controls. It is unmistakable against siblings like pm_update_team, pm_get_team, or pm_remove_team_member without needing to open any schema.

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?

It gives clear applicability context: the MANAGE_TEAMS permission gate and the `teams:write` API-key scope tell the agent exactly when the call is permissible, and the cascade warning signals the operational stakes. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., removing members instead of deleting the team), which keeps it from a 5.

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