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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds the authorization requirement (ownership or full-access share), which is exactly the kind of permission context the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or side effects on related data.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the action and key are front-loaded, and the permission constraint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with a rich annotation set and an existing output schema, the description covers action, key, and authorization. Return-value behavior is handled by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden for a single parameter. 'By id' clarifies that groupId is the content group identifier, but adds no format (UUID) or lookup guidance beyond the self-evident parameter name. Minimal but not absent compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a content group') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation targets. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., delete_topic_cluster, delete_saved_filter), but the resource noun alone disambiguates it within the delete_* family.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition for use: the owning property must be one you own or one shared with full access. That is real gating context rather than implied usage, but the description names no alternative (update_content_group, list_content_groups) and gives no when-not guidance.

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