delete_squad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is a soft-delete/archive and that assigned issues transfer to the leader, which are important side effects. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure scenarios, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Archive' and immediately states the key side effect. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and a key side effect. However, it omits any indication of return values, prerequisites, error conditions, or what happens to unassigned issues, making it moderately complete but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 50%, with only workspace_id documented. The tool description does not add any explanation for the 'id' parameter or clarify the semantics of either parameter beyond the schema, leaving a gap for the undocumented id. It relies on the tool name to infer that id refers to the squad, but this is not explicit.

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 action 'Archive (soft-delete)' on the 'squad' resource and specifies the consequence for assigned issues (transfer to leader). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_squad and delete_issue, providing a specific verb+resource+effect.

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 indicates the purpose is to archive/soft-delete a squad and explains the resulting behavior for issues, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but since there is no sibling tool for deleting squads, the context is sufficient.

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