Remove competition teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it removes teams and requires a verification code, lacking information on idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if a team does not exist), or side effects. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main action and a key requirement. While not verbose, it effectively conveys the core purpose and a critical condition. Could be slightly improved by adding one more sentence, but it is not wasteful.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain that it only works for team competitions, what happens on failure, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutating tool, this lack of context hinders reliable agent usage.

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 67%, covering 'id' and 'verificationCode' with adequate descriptions. However, 'teamNames' lacks a schema description and the tool description only adds 'by name', which is minimal. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, and the agent may not know expected format or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 clearly states the tool removes teams by name from a team competition. It uses a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('teams from a team competition'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like wom_add_competition_teams.

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 mentions the requirement of a verification code, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wom_edit_competition), nor does it state prerequisites or conditions for use. The implied usage is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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