appwrite_delete_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: the cascading deletion of memberships ('all its memberships') and the destructive nature ('irreversible'). It misses details on return values or required permissions.

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 appropriately concise with two front-loaded sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but doesn't significantly detract from readability. Every sentence conveys essential information about the operation's scope and risk.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the cascading effects but lacks information about success responses, authentication requirements, or confirmation workflows that would help an agent handle the tool's output and prerequisites.

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 0% for both 'site' and 'team_id' parameters. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (instance URL vs project ID) or the expected format of 'team_id', leaving parameter semantics undocumented.

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 specific verb (Delete), resource (team), and scope (all its memberships). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like `appwrite_delete_membership` (individual membership removal) and `appwrite_update_team` (modification).

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 irreversibility warning ('This action is irreversible') provides implicit guidance about cautious use, but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `appwrite_delete_membership` for removing individual members, or prerequisites like required permissions.

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