tempo_delete_team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: the two-tier confirmation protocol, the preview-then-confirmToken fallback, and the fact that a repeat call with the same arguments is required. It does not say what deleting a team cascades to (memberships, plans) or what permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the confirmation behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding, and the fallback detail is deferred to the schema.

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 no output schema, the description usefully describes the phase-1 preview + confirmToken return shape, which compensates for the missing output schema. It leaves out the consequences of deletion and any permission/auth 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 100%: "id" and "confirmToken" are both documented in exhaustive detail in the schema, including the token's provenance and non-reuse rule. The description only restates "by id"/"confirmToken" and therefore adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Delete a Tempo team by id" is a specific verb + resource + scope, and it is unambiguously distinct from its siblings (tempo_get_team, tempo_update_team, tempo_create_team, and the delete tools for other resources). No schema-opening is needed to know what it 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?

It clearly states the operational condition: confirmation is prompted where the client supports it, otherwise the two-step preview + confirmToken flow applies, and the token is ignored under elicitation. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. update_team for non-destructive edits), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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