scf_delete_team_assignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'destructive write.' It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the admin-role requirement, which an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the operation, states the target scope, and appends a compact warning about destructiveness and admin role. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description is complete: it names the operation, the target resource, the parent scope, and the authorization requirement. Annotations cover the destructive/read-only profile, and the schema fully documents parameter origins, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and both parameters include provenance guidance ('obtain from scf_list_organizations' and 'from scf_list_team_assignments'). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a team's assignment'), and the target scope ('from a control or evidence item'). It goes beyond the title by clarifying exactly what object the assignment is removed from, which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like scf_delete_assignment.

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 implies usage when a team assignment needs to be removed and adds an admin-role prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as scf_delete_assignment or scf_create_team_assignment, nor does it state conditions like 'use scf_delete_assignment for non-team assignments.'

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