aap_delete_organization

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

The description discloses the critical two-step confirmation process, which goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It explains that the first call returns a token and the second call performs the deletion, adding meaningful behavioral context. It also mentions the return types (confirmation request message or success/error JSON), giving a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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-organized, using clear sections for the action, the two-step process, parameters, and return value. No redundant or filler content appears. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is destructive and requires a multi-call workflow, and the description captures all essential aspects: the action, the confirmation mechanism, the parameters with their roles, and the expected output. The presence of an output schema is not required because the return behavior is explicitly described. The description is complete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

Although the input schema includes property descriptions for org_id and confirmation_token, the description enhances them by explaining the relationship between the two parameters: the token is issued by the first call and required to execute the deletion. This sequencing information is not fully captured in the schema and adds clear semantic value.

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 opens with 'Delete an AAP organization' – a specific verb, resource, and clear scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools (e.g., aap_delete_user, aap_delete_team) by naming the exact resource type. The destructive nature is emphasized with 'DESTRUCTIVE', further clarifying the tool's action.

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 explicit step-by-step usage: first call without the confirmation token to obtain one, then call again with the token to confirm deletion. This outlines the required sequence and the purpose of each call. It does not, however, discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the full 'when-not' guidance.

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