goclaw_team_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a team' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with zero waste—just three words. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what 'delete' entails (permanent? reversible?), prerequisites, side effects, and what the tool returns. For a tool that could have significant impact, this minimal description is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Team ID'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain where to find the ID, format requirements, or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete a team' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (team), but it's overly simplistic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_agent_delete' or 'goclaw_session_delete' beyond the resource type. It lacks specificity about what 'team' means in this context compared to other deletion tools.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing team ID), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated agents or data), or when not to use it (e.g., if team has active sessions). The description offers only the basic function without context.

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