deleteGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '删除分组' only indicates a destructive deletion operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, side effects (e.g., what happens to rules/values in the group), error conditions, or rate limits. This is critically inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise with just two Chinese characters. While severely under-specified, it contains no redundant or unnecessary words. Every character directly communicates the core action, making it technically efficient despite its inadequacy.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what gets deleted, prerequisites, consequences, or return values. Given the complexity of group management (with many sibling tools for rules and values), this minimal description leaves critical gaps for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 100% with the single parameter 'groupName' documented as '分组名称' (group name). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score of 3 applies even though the description contributes zero parameter semantics.

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 '删除分组' (delete group) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'deleteGroup' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of group is being deleted or what resources are affected. While it clearly indicates a deletion action, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'deleteRule', 'deleteValue', or 'deleteValueGroup'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'createGroup', 'renameGroup', or 'deleteValueGroup'. The agent receives no contextual help for tool selection.

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