Delete team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — the team must no longer own accounts — which is context annotations cannot express. However, it never says whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it fails when accounts remain, or what happens to team members.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive action and its precondition come first. It is nearly as short as it can be, though the terseness leaves the constraints implicit rather than spelled out.

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, irreversible-by-nature operation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should state failure behavior (team still owns accounts) and irreversibility. It supplies the precondition but leaves the agent guessing about consequences and error conditions.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for teamId and adds nothing: it does not clarify whether teamId is an opaque platform ID or a name, nor where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory and required, which keeps this at a minimal-viable 3 rather than lower.

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") and adds a qualifying precondition ("that no longer owns accounts"), which distinguishes it from create_team/update_team/list_teams. It stops short of naming a sibling or describing the difference in scope, but the action is 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?

The phrase "that no longer owns accounts" implies when deletion is appropriate, but it is not framed as a hard requirement or prerequisite, and no alternative (e.g. remove_team_account, update_team) is mentioned for the case where a team still owns accounts. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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