cigchat_team_delete_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly flags 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', explains the two-step confirmation flow, and discloses the required scope. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool.

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 compact: purpose, destructive warning, and usage in about 30 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then warning, then actionable steps. No redundant phrases.

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 delete without annotations or output schema, the description covers essential aspects: irreversible nature, confirmation workflow, and scope requirement. It lacks details about the impact statement contents or error cases, but is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 50% (only `confirm` has a description). The description adds context for `confirm` (call without it first, get impact statement), but `id` semantics are left to inference from tool name and endpoint. It partially compensates but not fully for the undocumented `id`.

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 'Delete label' with the specific endpoint '/team/delete-label', making the verb and resource clear. It also distinguishes from sibling 'cigchat_team_delete_label_by_name' by implicitly targeting deletion by ID (as required by the schema).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first' and requires the 'Manage Team' scope. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions, but the confirmation protocol is clearly explained.

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