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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing cascade behavior — the team is automatically detached from documents and templates — and the precise failure precondition: deletion fails if the team is an approver on any template. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before committing an irreversible action.

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, purpose front-loaded, then the trigger condition, then the behavioral consequences. The bullet list is compact at a single item and nothing is redundant with the title 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the two things that actually matter: what else gets modified and when the call will be rejected. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already carries its meaning. The description adds no identifier format, sourcing hint (e.g. obtain from list-account-teams), or validation detail, so the baseline applies.

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 and resource ('Delete an existing team'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update-account-team, create-account-team, and the other delete-* tools targeting tags/metadata/document types. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('The user explicitly asks to delete a team'), making the when-to-use case unambiguous. It stops short of naming the alternative path (update-account-team for modification, or detaching team members first), so exclusion guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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