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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial beyond them: irreversibility, the owner authorization requirement, the exact cascading side effects (all members, share rules, and team keys for encrypted teams), and the refusal semantics on a mismatched name. This is precisely the context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive warning, then prerequisites, then side effects, then the call mechanics. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: safety profile, authorization, blast radius, confirmation protocol, and failure behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds the intent behind confirmName — that it must come from an explicit user confirmation and acts as a guard that aborts the delete on mismatch. That is meaning beyond the schema wording, though teamId gets no extra commentary.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Delete a team") with immediate scope qualifier "permanently". It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like muninn_team_remove_member, muninn_team_share_remove, or muninn_team_transfer_owner, since the description enumerates what is torn down alongside the team.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ("Caller must be the team owner") and a required workflow ("Ask the user to confirm first, then pass the team's exact name"). It never names an alternative tool for reversible/partial operations, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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