Delete Team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial behavioral context: 'Deletion is irreversible' and 'Tickets previously assigned to the team will lose their team assignment'. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining what exactly gets destroyed, which is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent understand consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the HTTP method and resource, then provides critical caveats (irreversibility and ticket assignment loss). Every element adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple delete operation with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description fully covers the operational context, including side effects and irreversibility. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for the id field. The tool description only says 'by ID' and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate further.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a team by ID'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on deletion and mentioning the irreversible nature and effect on tickets. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context: use when you need to permanently delete a team. It provides important context about irreversibility and the consequence for tickets, which helps the agent decide whether this is the right tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion with update/get tools.

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