tempo_delete_team

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the critical confirmation requirement and the two-step token fallback, which are not derivable from the annotations. This is valuable behavioral context beyond structured data.

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 two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core action and then explains the confirmation behavior. Every clause earns its place, and the reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is appropriately placed.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the non-obvious confirmation behavior and token handling. It does not detail post-deletion effects or permissions, but those are not essential for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents both id and confirmToken, including the token's 'ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback' semantics. The tool description only briefly references the token's role, adding little beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Delete a Tempo team by id', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly separates it from the many read/update siblings. Even without the title, the purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 explicit context for how and when the deletion proceeds: confirmation first, with a preview/confirmToken fallback for clients without elicitation. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the core usage is clear and the confirmation flow is a strong form of guidance.

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