Delete organisation (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, cascades to all projects, requires OWNER role, and returns a 400 for personal organisations. This is rich behavioral context that significantly adds value over the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the destructive and irreversible nature, then cover prerequisites, an exclusion case, and a pointer to move_project. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, this description covers prerequisites, constraints, side effects, and the necessary preparatory action. An agent has enough information to decide correctly and avoid destructive mistakes.

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 already documents the single 'org' parameter with its id/slug/name format at 100% coverage. The description does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('shared organisation'), and explicitly states the cascade to 'every project inside it'. This clearly differentiates it from deleting a single project, especially with delete_project present as a sibling.

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 description gives clear context: it requires the OWNER role, cannot be used on personal organisations, and advises moving projects out first using move_project. It does not explicitly state 'use delete_project instead for a single project', so it falls just short of fully explicit alternative routing.

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