github_orgs_revoke_all_org_roles_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., team loses all organization roles), reversibility, or impact on team members. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 with no redundant information. It is concise, though arguably too brief. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate with richer behavioral context. It does not explain the effects of removing all roles, required permissions, or any confirmation steps. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications.

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 2 parameters with 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are minimal ('org', 'team_slug'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 'Remove all organization roles for a team' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'github_orgs_revoke_org_role_team' (which revokes a single role) and 'github_orgs_revoke_all_org_roles_user' (which targets a user).

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 assigning a role or revoking a single role. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.

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