Delete an organization

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it names the affected org-level resources, notes downstream breakage for anything relying on org-level secrets, states the admin requirement, and reveals the two-step confirmation flow. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured: main effect first, then prerequisites, then exclusions and consequences, then the two-step note. Every sentence carries useful information and no filler is present.

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 org-level operation with a two-step confirmation, the description plus annotations and complete schema coverage give an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly: what is deleted, who may call it, the confirmation flow, and what remains untouched.

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 org_id and confirm_token thoroughly. The description's 'Two-step' hint marginally reinforces the confirm_token purpose, but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') and a clear resource ('an organization from Woodpecker'), and lists exactly what is removed along with it: org-level secrets, registries, and agents. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling delete_repository, delete_secret, and delete_registry 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?

It gives clear context: admin-only, two-step, and what it does not do (does not touch the forge or delete repositories). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the scoping language makes the appropriate use obvious relative to the sibling delete_* tools.

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