Delete a team

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations. It explicitly states the side effect on owned websites (not deleted but inaccessible), warns that the action cannot be undone, and requires confirm=true. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Compact and well-structured: warning first, then arguments, then return shape. Every section adds practical value, and the irreversible nature is emphasized without unnecessary prose.

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?

Complete for a destructive two-parameter tool. It explains the consequences, the confirmation requirement, the return value, and gives actionable advice (reassign websites first). No critical invocation detail is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both team_id and confirm fully. The description largely restates their meanings rather than adding new semantic details, which justifies the baseline score.

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?

States the exact operation: 'Permanently delete a team' — specific verb and resource, distinct from team update/list/get siblings. The permanent nature and team scoping remove ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite: reassign websites before deletion if they still need a home. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives like umami_update_team or umami_delete_website, leaving some routing to inference.

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