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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the cascade effect that members lose pages granted by the team. This discloses a consequence an agent wouldn't infer from the schema alone, though it doesn't state irreversibility or permissions.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and following with the material consequence.

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 tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is nearly complete, adding the cascade side effect. Minor gaps (reversibility, prerequisites) remain but are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter (team_id) with schema coverage at 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or sourcing, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a team'), clearly distinguishing it from the delete_channel/delete_page/delete_pixel/delete_monitor siblings by resource name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is unique enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mentioned (e.g., no note about deactivating vs permanent deletion, or redirecting to delete variants). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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