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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the first call returns CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED with a confirmToken, the user must be informed, and the retry must repeat the same arguments. It stops short of describing downstream effects on team members or related entities.

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, zero waste, with the action and permission scope front-loaded before the confirmation flow. Nothing is padded.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential confirmation loop and admin gating. It is slightly thin on consequences (what happens to team members, whether the team itself survives), which matters 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters, including confirmToken, are documented in the schema. The description only restates the retry contract ('SAME arguments plus confirmToken'), which adds little beyond what the schema already says. 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 ('Detach a team from an organization') plus an audience constraint ('admins'). It is clearly not the inverse tool add_team_to_organization, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from delete_team or remove_member.

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?

The admin restriction and the two-step confirmation protocol are useful procedural guidance, but nothing says when to choose this over delete_team or update_team, nor any prerequisites beyond admin role.

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