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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what they cannot: ownership transfer to the earliest remaining member, cascading team deletion for the last member, and a named refusal code with a remediation path. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before committing to a destructive call.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the failure mode immediately after. The closing clause is dense (error code plus remediation compressed into a colon construction) but every element earns its place.

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?

With annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers the destructive consequences and the main refusal path, which is the hard part. It stops short of saying whether a deleted team is recoverable (a trash_restore sibling exists), which would have closed the last gap for a destructive operation.

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%, with both the required team id/slug and the optional, unrecorded 'why' field fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 ('Leave a team') and immediately disambiguates from the nearby team_delete and team_remove_member siblings by explaining that the last member leaving is what deletes the team. An agent can tell exactly what this call means for the caller 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 conditions under which the call succeeds, changes ownership, or is refused (TEAM_HAS_PLAN on a paid plan, with the instruction that the person cancels the plan in Billing first). It does not name a preferred alternative tool, but the described side effects make the boundary with team_remove_member / team_delete inferable.

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