disassociate_mpa_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the association moves to DELETE_PENDING, may require approval from the currently associated team before clearing, and that requester_comment is stored in plaintext in CloudTrail — all meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized: purpose first, then compliance caveat, then behavioral detail, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value and none repeats schema 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?

The description covers purpose, side effects, approval behavior, and parameter semantics, which is strong for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It could mention how to verify the resulting DELETE_PENDING state or which sibling tool to use for checking association status, but this is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 0%, but the description compensates for both parameters. It explains action with a concrete example and requester_comment with length and auditability caveats. It could be stronger by enumerating valid action values, but the semantics provided are meaningful and sufficient for typical use.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'remove Multi-Party Approval from an operation, returning it to single-principal control.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling associate_mpa_team and states the exact outcome.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call, including the compliance-sensitive nature of the action and the fact that it weakens a dual-control boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the inverse relationship to associate_mpa_team is strongly implied and the caution about confirming intent gives practical usage guidance.

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