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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, so the bar is low, yet the description adds the cascade detail agents actually need: memberships and team artifact links are removed while artifacts survive. It also names the blocking error code and the exact out-of-band action required to clear it.

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: action first, then deletion side effects, then the blocker and its fix. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the 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 destructive mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description closes the remaining gaps: who may call it, what is cascaded versus preserved, and how to resolve the one expected refusal. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so 'team' (id or slug) and the unusual 'why' parameter (accepted but not recorded) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the ownership requirement. Baseline 3 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 a team') plus the authority scope ('as its owner'), which immediately separates it from team_leave and team_remove_member. An agent can pick this tool without opening the 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?

Gives the prerequisite (owner) and an explicit refusal condition (TEAM_HAS_PLAN) with the remedy ('its person cancels the plan in Billing first'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling team_leave, which is a minor gap but the ownership qualifier does most of the routing work.

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