kaiten_delete_sd_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. It states that the organization is deleted, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether related data is cascaded or removed, what permissions are required, or what response to expect. For a destructive operation, this leaves important behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. The simplicity fits the tool's low parameter count and straightforward purpose.

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 one-parameter deletion tool, the core call contract is complete: an agent knows what to delete and which ID is required. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally provide at least a hint about expected outcomes, side effects, or irreversibility. This gap keeps it from being fully complete, but the tool's low complexity makes the missing context less critical than for a multi-parameter mutation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage: organization_id is described as 'Organization ID' and is clearly required. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already documents the only parameter adequately. This is the baseline case where schema carries the load.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('Service Desk organization'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaiten_create_sd_organization, kaiten_update_sd_organization, and kaiten_get_sd_organization, which operate on the same resource with different actions.

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 the tool is used when a Service Desk organization needs to be removed, but it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where deletion should be avoided. No sibling tool performs this exact deletion, so the lack of alternative routing is not a major issue, but usage context is still only implied.

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