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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial details beyond that: side effects (releasing displays, removing members) and authentication/permission requirements (owner-only, admin scope). It also emphasizes irreversibility, providing context not captured in annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action and its immediate consequences; the second packs permissions and irreversibility into three short clauses. Every word 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?

For a destructive tool with an output schema and well-documented params, the description covers the essential information: what happens (permanent deletion), side effects, and access requirements. It omits nothing critical an agent would need to invoke it correctly, though it could theoretically mention the return value, which is presumably handled by the output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, all three parameters (org_id, access_token, session_request_id) are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'deletes' with the resource 'organization' and specifies concrete effects: releasing all displays and removing all members. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_display or delete_asset, which target different resources. The irreversible nature is also made explicit.

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 description provides explicit prerequisites: only the owner can delete, and admin scope is required. While it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is the correct choice for deleting an entire organization, not individual displays or assets.

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