Contract Testing: Admin Delete Team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the core safety profile is known. The description adds the 'admin' scope but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related resources, or what side effects may occur. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter section is redundant with the input schema but is minimal and does not significantly harm readability. A slightly leaner version could drop the repeated parameter details.

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 single parameter and existing annotations, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the tool. However, for a destructive admin operation, it does not explicitly state that the deletion is irreversible, whether it affects team members or dependencies, or what success/failure looks like since there is no output schema.

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 the description only repeats exactly what the schema already says: teamId is a required UUID string. No additional meaning, formatting guidance, or value constraints are provided beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a team (admin).' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling admin team operations by the delete action. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not add any differentiating context beyond the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like admin_update_team or admin_get_team. The description implies the obvious use case—deleting a team—but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context.

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