Permanently delete a team after reviewing its ID and confirming the action. Prevents accidental removal by requiring an explicit confirmation.
Permanently delete a team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true after reviewing the target and consequences | |
| team_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds 'Permanently' which reinforces irreversibility, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like cascading effects on memberships or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the key fact (permanence). It is efficient and free of filler, though it could arguably include more context without becoming verbose.
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 mutation with no output schema and minimal description, the definition is thin. It doesn't explain what happens to team memberships, whether the operation is reversible, or what success/failure looks like. The confirm parameter implies a safeguard, but the description doesn't elaborate on consequences.
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%: team_id is described only by its type/constraints, while confirm has a description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the undocumented team_id semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('team'), clearly identifying the operation. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like balena_delete_fleet or balena_delete_variable, but the resource name in the tool name and description makes the target 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or consequences beyond the schema's confirm parameter. The description simply states the action without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.