Contract Testing: Admin Delete Team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what those flags and the tool name already convey – no statement about irreversibility, cascade effects on team members or roles, or required authorization. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, the description's failure to add any nuance earns a low score.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the '**Toolset:** Admin' and '**Parameters:**' blocks duplicate information already present in the tool name and input schema, adding structure without content.

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 single-parameter destructive action with rich annotations and an output schema, the definition is adequate but minimal. It omits the one thing structured fields cannot express: the consequences of deletion and any authorization requirement for this admin call.

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 single teamId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it is a UUID and required. The description merely repeats that same text, so it contributes no additional meaning (e.g., where to obtain the team ID). The high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a team') and tags it as an admin operation, which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from sibling reads/updates like get_team, update_team, and remove_user_from_team. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest destructive sibling, so it is clear but not maximally disambiguating.

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 versus alternatives such as remove_user_from_team or set_team_users, and no prerequisites, permissions, or confirmation requirements are mentioned. The only usage signal is the bare '(admin)' qualifier, which implies elevated privilege without explaining it.

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