github_orgs_delete

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied destructive action. There are no annotations to provide additional context, and the description fails to mention that deletion is permanent or requires specific 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?

The description is extremely concise (one phrase), which is not necessarily a problem, but it lacks structure and any additional sentences that could provide useful context. It is minimal but not well-organized.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should at least mention the permanent nature of deletion, required permissions, or any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'org', but the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It only restates the parameter name without clarifying its format or required context.

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 'Delete an organization' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It adds no additional context to distinguish it from other org operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_update or github_orgs_get. There is no mention of prerequisites or that deletion is irreversible.

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