Delete a team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is irreversible, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects on associated data, required permissions, or whether it is a hard or soft delete, leaving notable gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately convey the action and the key warning. There is no fluff, and the critical 'Irreversible' note is front-loaded.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description omits return values, error handling, prerequisites, and effects on related entities. The irreversibility warning is helpful but insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 only reinforces 'by id' for teamId, offering no explanation of the 'organization' parameter, value formats, or how teamId is obtained. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 'team', and clarifies 'by id'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like wflow_list_teams, wflow_get_team, and wflow_upsert_team by indicating a destructive 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 purpose implicitly suggests when to use this tool (to remove a team), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Irreversible' warning is the only additional usage hint, but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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