cigchat_team_delete_label_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively does so: it flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE and irreversible, discloses the impact-statement-first requirement, and notes the required permission scope. It could detail what the impact statement contains, but the current coverage is strong for safety awareness.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded ('Delete label by label name') followed by essential warnings and usage steps. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a destructive delete with a confirmation mechanism, and the description covers the necessary context: the operation, the irreversibility, the two-step confirmation, and the required scope. With no output schema and only two simple parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

The schema only describes the 'confirm' parameter; 'name' lacks a description (50% coverage). The tool description compensates by clarifying that name is the label name used for deletion, and it reinforces the confirm parameter's purpose through the call-first-then-confirm guidance. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare 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'), resource ('label'), and method ('by label name'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool cigchat_team_delete_label (likely delete by ID). It also includes the HTTP DELETE endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

Provides clear guidance on the two-step confirmation flow: call without 'confirm' first to get an impact statement, then with the token after approval. Also states the required 'Manage Team' scope. It does not explicitly list when to prefer this over alternates, but the 'by name' phrasing serves as a differentiator.

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