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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description enumerates concrete consequences: memberships and pending invitations are destroyed while jury invitations keep seats but lose the tribe link. It also discloses irreversibility, auth failure modes, and the return payload, all context the annotation alone does not provide.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: irreversibility, side effects, error behavior, and the alternative tool. The most important constraint (permanent deletion) is front-loaded.

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 operation with no output schema, this is complete. It covers eligibility, side effects, error semantics, return shape, and the sibling to use instead, so an agent can invoke it correctly without further lookup.

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?

The input schema already fully documents tribeId with format, source, and ownership/admin requirement, so the description does not need to add much. The main text reinforces the valid caller but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema description provides.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Permanently delete' with the resource 'tribe' and immediately clarifies ownership/admin scope. It is unambiguous about what the operation does and, through the leave_tribe reference, distinguishes itself from the nearest 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?

It states when deletion is appropriate and who may do it (owner or admin), and explicitly routes members who merely want out to tribeunal_leave_tribe. The 403/404 conditions also tell the agent what will happen in unauthorized cases.

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