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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it discloses the soft-delete semantics (not a hard delete), the cascade effect on signature deployment, and the 409 conflict condition tied to directory integrations. Annotations only give generic destructive/idempotent hints; the description supplies the domain-specific behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the critical precondition. No filler; every clause carries operational weight.

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?

Covers action, scope constraint, side effects, and failure mode. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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. The description adds meaning by tying 'UUID' to the id returned by list_teammates, reinforcing correct sourcing of the value.

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+resource ('Delete a teammate by UUID') and immediately clarifies it is a soft delete with a specific side effect (emails removed from signature deployment), distinguishing it from update_teammate and delete_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition for use ('Only available when the workspace manages its own team list') and the failure mode with an alternative-driving integration (directory integration → 409 conflict). This tells the agent both when to use it and when it will fail.

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