aap_delete_team

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: confirmation is required and the token comes from a first call. This explains the two-step confirmation flow, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not detail irreversibility or cascading effects on related resources.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose and the destructive warning. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but remains brief and organized. No filler content.

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 the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema to cover return values, the description covers the essential aspects: action, destruction, confirmation, and parameters. It falls short of fully explaining the two-step confirmation procedure, but this is adequately implied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains team_id as 'Team ID' (minimal) and confirmation_token as 'Token from first call' (useful and clarifies the flow). It adds some meaning but team_id lacks guidance on how to obtain it, and no details about the confirmation token's format or expiry.

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 immediately states 'Delete an AAP team' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like aap_delete_workflow_template or aap_delete_schedule. The meaning is unambiguous and directly matches the tool name.

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 implies when to use via 'DESTRUCTIVE - requires confirmation' but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this only for permanent removal' or comparison to update operations, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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