delete_organization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies destructive action, the description doesn't state whether deletion requires confirmation, whether it cascades to related resources (people, tasks, lists), or whether it's reversible. For an organization that likely contains many dependent resources, this is a significant gap.

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 brief (one sentence), which is efficient but potentially under-specified. It doesn't actively waste words, but for a destructive operation with likely side effects, more content would be warranted—so this isn't exemplary conciseness, it's more under-specification.

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 destructive tool operating on an organization (likely a parent resource containing people, lists, and tasks per the sibling tools), the one-line description is insufficient. There's no output schema and no annotations to compensate, and the description doesn't convey the potential impact of orphaned or cascaded resources.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is described as 'The ID of the organization to delete'), so the schema fully documents the only parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Delete an organization' states the verb (delete) and resource (organization) clearly. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_person and delete_list, though it's a minimal description that doesn't add scope or detail beyond what the tool name itself conveys.

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 or what prerequisites exist (e.g., whether the organization must have no members/tasks before deletion). Sibling tools like delete_list and delete_person exist but no exclusions or context are offered.

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