rybbit_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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that deletion is 'permanently' (irreversibility) and states the required admin role and scope, which are critical behavioral constraints. It does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletions, but for a simple delete tool this is adequate.

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 crisp two-sentence structure: one sentence for the action and one for the prerequisites. It wastes no words, front-loads the primary purpose, and every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core aspects: what it does, that it is permanent, and the access requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation and its 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?

Both parameters (teamId and organizationId) have schema descriptions ('Team identifier' and 'Organization identifier'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with 'Delete a team permanently,' which clearly specifies the action (delete), the resource (team), and an important nuance (permanently). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete users, goals, funnels, or sites, and from get/create/update team tools.

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 states 'Requires org admin/owner role and the org:write scope,' providing clear prerequisites that help an agent decide whether it can use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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