vk_delete_teams_0bdccd633612

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the destructive action, the cascading side effect ('This will also remove the access for all users in that team'), and the authentication requirement. It does not mention irreversibility, error behavior, or response format, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the key statement 'Deletes a team.' and is fairly compact, but it contains a redundant sentence: 'Delets a team.' repeats the first sentence with a typo. This wasted sentence prevents a higher score.

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 simple one-parameter delete endpoint with no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the action, a critical side effect, the auth requirement, request body expectation, and parameter formatting. It could add error cases or response codes, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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 coverage is 100% (the single 'id' parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are top-level fields, accept camelCase/snake_case aliases, and that no request body is usually required, which clarifies how to supply 'id' beyond the schema's anyOf type.

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 tool's function: 'Deletes a team.' and maps it to the explicit REST endpoint 'DELETE /teams/{id}', which makes the verb and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from delete tools for other resources (projects, tasks, labels), though it does not differentiate between the two similarly-named team deletion siblings.

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 provides invocation tips (authentication required, no request body usually, top-level parameters, camelCase/snake_case aliases) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It never mentions sibling tools like vk_delete_teams_e7d740105b63 or contrasts with team update/create endpoints.

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