fossa_delete_team

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that the operation writes to FOSSA, requires specific admin/destructive permissions, removes the team from all groups, drops all associations such as member access and project/release group assignments, and is irreversible with no undo. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Delete a FOSSA team'), and every sentence adds value: prerequisites, detailed effects, and irreversibility. No word is wasted.

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 single-parameter destructive delete operation, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, required permissions, side effects, non-destruction of related entities, and lack of undo. Given the output schema exists, return value documentation is unnecessary. The agent has all context needed to invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the team_id parameter at all. While the tool name and purpose make it inferable that team_id identifies the team to delete, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation as required by the rubric for low-coverage cases.

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 FOSSA team,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fossa_create_team, fossa_update_team, and fossa_get_team. The name itself is 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 explicitly states the required environment variables (FOSSA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, FOSSA_ALLOW_ADMIN=true, FOSSA_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) and describes the full consequences of deleting a team, including removal from groups and dropping associations. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive modifications.

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