delete_teamDelete a team that no longer owns accounts by providing its team ID. Removes the team and its associated data from the social media management system.
Delete a team that no longer owns accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does 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 says 'Delete' and does not explain whether deletion is permanent, whether it fails if the team still owns accounts, what permissions are required, or what the response/error behavior looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key scoping condition is placed immediately after the verb. It is concise, though it sacrifices behavioral detail.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states a precondition but omits consequences, failure cases, and expected result format, which an agent would need to invoke and interpret 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention teamId at all. The property name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how to identify the team, what format the ID takes, or how the ownership condition relates to the parameter.
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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('team'), and adds a precise scoping condition: 'that no longer owns accounts.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_team, remove_team_account, and get_team, so the agent can select it correctly.
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 the precondition for deletion, giving some context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as remove_team_account for teams that still own accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.