github_teams_delete_legacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Delete a team (Legacy)' without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects (e.g., on members or repositories), or that this is a destructive operation. The description fails to add value beyond the name.

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 (3 words), but this comes at the cost of completeness. It omits critical details such as legacy deprecation, usage guidance, and behavioral notes. Conciseness is not achieved when it sacrifices necessary information.

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 complexity (legacy vs modern API, no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Legacy' implies (e.g., deprecated, limited scope), how deletion affects team members or associated resources, or what the response contains. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 for the single `team_id` parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('team'), and includes '(Legacy)' to differentiate from the non-legacy sibling tool `github_teams_delete_in_org`. This provides sufficient verb+resource+scope clarity for an agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_teams_delete_in_org`. It does not mention that this is a legacy endpoint or advise preference for the newer version. No exclusivity or context for usage is given.

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