Teams: Delete a team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the auth requirement (User API key in `api-access-token` header) and reinforces permanence ('permanently deletes the resource'). The input-language/digit note is useful behavioral context for callers. It does not restate the idempotency trait, but the added auth detail is real value beyond structured data.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by endpoint, auth, and destructive warning in a tight sequence. The trailing Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is somewhat generic boilerplate but still relevant to input handling.

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 two-param destructive delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the endpoint, auth mechanism, and irreversibility warning. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though a note on what happens to team members/agents would round it out.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both required path parameters, and the endpoint string in the description confirms them. No additional syntax, format, or edge-case meaning is added, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a team from the account') and even names the endpoint, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from gapify_create_team, gapify_update_team, and gapify_list_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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the API endpoint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisite/warning workflow before an irreversible delete. For a destructive single-purpose tool this is adequate but unhelpful beyond the obvious.

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