pob_delete_skill_group

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding what those annotations cannot: the deletion is irreversible except by restoring XML from history, and the operation triggers a recalculation of the main skill. The odd reference to 'SkillListControl.OnSelDelete' adds mechanism context but is internal jargon of limited use to an agent.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the undo path: a sensible order with no filler. The embedded code-symbol 'SkillListControl.OnSelDelete' is the one piece of wording that does not clearly earn its place for an agent reader.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, annotations plus the undo note and main-skill recalculation cover the important behavior. The remaining gap is identifier semantics: an agent still cannot tell where a valid groupId comes from, which matters more here than for a read-only sibling.

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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It says 'указанную группу' without explaining how a groupId is obtained, whether it is the group index or an ID, or what happens if the main-skill group is passed; the schema only enforces integer >= 1.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Удалить указанную группу' (delete the specified group). The verb alone separates it from the siblings pob_add_skill_group and pob_update_skill_group, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no explicit statement of when to delete versus update, or what preconditions exist (e.g., whether the group must be non-main). The one real guideline, 'Для отмены восстановите XML из истории', is recovery advice rather than tool-selection guidance.

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