Delete multiple teams in one request by specifying their IDs; selected teams move to trash and can be restored later.
Delete multiple teams. Delete multiple teams at once in a single request. Specify the team identifiers you want to delete, and all selected teams will be moved to the trash. Deleted teams can be restored later if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: deleted teams are moved to the trash and can be restored later, clarifying that this is a soft delete and not permanent. This is important for an agent to understand the consequences.
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 four sentences, but the first two are redundant: 'Delete multiple teams. Delete multiple teams at once in a single request.' The first sentence adds no information beyond the tool name. The remaining sentences are informative and front-load the key behavior.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (batch destructive operation) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: batch deletion, soft-delete via trash, and restorability. Missing details like error handling or atomicity are minor for an agent to invoke 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by indicating that the body should contain 'team identifiers you want to delete'. However, it does not describe the array-of-objects structure or that each identifier is an integer, leaving the agent to infer those details from 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('multiple teams'), and distinguishes from the singular delete_team sibling by specifying 'multiple' and 'at once in a single request'. However, the opening sentence restates the tool name almost verbatim, slightly weakening its distinctiveness.
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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives to this tool. It implies usage for batch deletion but does not mention when to prefer it over deleting teams individually or using other batch tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.