npm_team_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable detail: it revokes all package permissions, removes team memberships, requires confirm: true, and performs the operation in one call. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the side effects, and the precautionary tip. No redundancy or filler, with the most critical information front-loaded.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the operation, required confirmation, consequences, and how to mitigate data loss. It is fully self-contained and leaves no important gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with both team and confirm already well documented. The description echoes the confirm requirement but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a team') and specifies the input format ('@scope:team'). It also lists the consequences (revokes all package permissions, removes memberships), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_team_revoke or npm_team_member_remove that operate on narrower scopes.

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 gives clear usage context: requires confirm: true and warns to preserve grants by listing them with npm_team_packages first. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like npm_team_revoke, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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