github_teams_remove_repo_in_org

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, required permissions, reversibility). This is a removal operation, so basic transparency is expected but absent.

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. It is not verbose, but could be improved with more useful information without sacrificing brevity.

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?

The description is extremely minimal for a destructive operation. It does not explain success behavior, error conditions, or side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context.

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 100% but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org'), adding no semantic value. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high coverage, but the descriptions are tautological.

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: 'Remove a repository from a team'. It matches the tool name and is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_remove_repo_legacy or other team repo management tools.

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 (e.g., legacy version, add/update permissions). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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