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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion auto-detaches the team from documents and templates, and it will fail if the team is an approver on any template — a meaningful precondition beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then a scannable trigger bullet, then the side-effect and failure caveats. No filler sentences; every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive, single-parameter tool the description covers trigger, cascading side effects, and the failure precondition — an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (team_uuid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct 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?

"Delete an existing team" states a specific verb and resource, and the delete verb clearly separates it from the create-account-team and update-account-team siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but an agent will not confuse this with any other sibling.

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 "Use this tool when: the user explicitly asks to delete a team" bullet gives an explicit positive trigger condition, and the last sentence discloses a precondition (fails if team is an approver on a template). No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context is clear.

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