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

Although annotations already flag this as destructive and idempotent, the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot convey: what exactly is revoked/deactivated, that the roster and history remain readable, that the name becomes reusable, the refusal preconditions, and the personal-API-key requirement.

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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded with the highest-value information (effect, then preconditions, then auth). Every clause adds a distinct fact with no filler.

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, one fully-documented parameter, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: effects, side effects, refusal conditions, and credential requirement.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The team's id, from list_teams.' The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies with the schema carrying the load.

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+resource ('Archive a team') and then enumerates the concrete consequences: leaving routing, revoking own and team-scoped grants, deactivating the escalation policy. This clearly separates it from siblings like rename_team, update_team, or archive_team_escalation_policy.

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 states explicit refusal conditions (an active escalation path or pending request targeting the team, or a team managed by your directory) which tell the agent when the call will fail, plus the auth requirement. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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