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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does state that the deletion is permanent (irreversible), which is a critical behavioral trait, and that admin permission is required. However, it omits potential cascading effects (e.g., what happens to linked projects, tasks, members) and does not clarify error behavior if both or neither name/ID are provided.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action 'Delete a team permanently'. It includes only essential information—permission level and identification method—with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core operation, permission, and identification. However, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, and potential side effects, which matters because there is no output schema or annotation to fill those gaps.

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 both parameters: team_id and team_name, each described as optional if the other is provided. The description's 'Find by name or ID' merely summarizes this without adding new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Delete', identifies the resource 'team', and adds key qualifiers 'permanently' and 'admin only'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_document, delete_project) by naming 'team' and from update_team by using the delete verb.

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 explicitly notes that the operation is admin-only, giving a clear when-not condition (non-admins should not use). It also tells the agent that the team can be found by name or ID, providing practical usage context. However, it does not mention alternative tools or contrast with update_team for cases where a soft delete might be appropriate.

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