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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by enumerating the exact entities affected (leads, scheduled calls, phone numbers, integrations, webhooks, fallbacks), stating reps are removed rather than reassigned, and calling out the primary-team guard and the confirmation requirement. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effects, followed by the guard condition and the safety instruction. No filler; every clause carries operational 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, constraints, and required confirmation, which is everything an agent must know before invoking. Nothing material is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that reassign_team_id absorbs leads/calls/numbers/integrations/etc. while reps are explicitly NOT moved there, resolving an ambiguity in the schema's own wording. This is meaningful added semantics over the schema.

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 (Delete) and resource (a team) and immediately disambiguates scope by describing the cascade of reassignment and rep removal. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like manage_team or update_team_members without opening a 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?

Provides a clear when-not ('The primary team cannot be deleted') and a procedural precondition ('Confirm with the user first'), which is exactly what an agent needs before a destructive call. It stops short of naming alternatives for non-delete team operations, so it is clear context rather than a full routing guide.

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