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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the cascade (all rules in the group are removed) and the draft-only restriction, which the annotations do not convey. It doesn't say whether the operation is reversible or what a partial/failed delete returns, but the output schema covers the response shape.

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 short sentences, with the action, the cascade effect, and the draft-only constraint front-loaded before the identifier provenance. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers action, cascade scope, environment restriction, and ID provenance. It stops short of stating reversibility or the not-found behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description still adds sourcing guidance for displayLogicGroupId by pointing to display_logic_list, which saves the agent a discovery step; surveyId receives no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove one group (one leg) of a question's display logic') and immediately disambiguates scope from the sibling rule-level tools by noting it takes 'all its rules' with it. An agent can distinguish this from display_logic_container_delete and display_logic_rule_delete without opening a schema.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite — '(draft surveys only)' — and tells the agent where the required identifier comes from ('displayLogicGroupId comes from display_logic_list'). It does not explicitly contrast with display_logic_rule_delete or container_delete, so the when-to-choose-this-over-siblings decision is only implied.

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