delete_metabase_group

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. While it mentions 'Deletion confirmation' in returns, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., removing users from the group), or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by clear Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The formatting with headings makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description does the minimum viable job. The output schema exists (Returns: Dict[str, Any]), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a delete operation, it should ideally mention permissions, irreversibility, or side effects to be fully complete.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clearly explaining that 'group_id' is the 'ID of the group to delete.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., positive integers) or where to find valid group IDs.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a group (role) from Metabase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_metabase_user or delete_metabase_card by specifying the target resource type. It uses precise terminology that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), consequences (e.g., what happens to users in the deleted group), or when to choose other deletion tools like delete_metabase_user. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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