Delete group deploy token

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

The annotations already carry destructive=true, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by stating the return shape ("a wrapper containing the original response, no data for successful deletion") and the two error classes it raises, but it omits the consequences of deletion and any auth requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the rest is auto-generated Python docstring scaffolding (Args/Returns/Raises) that spends words on **kwargs rather than on the identifiers needed to call the tool. It is not bloated, but much of its length does not earn its place.

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?

A destructive, open-world delete with 11 largely irrelevant-looking parameters and no output schema needs more than this: the schema doesn't even contain the documented deploy_token_id, and with no required parameters an agent has no signal about what is mandatory. Only the return-value and exception behavior are adequately covered.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. It names group_id and deploy_token_id as examples, but deploy_token_id is not even a property in the schema while the actual properties (name, token, scopes, page, per_page, max_pages, username, expires_at, project_id) are completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell which ones this delete call actually honors.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a deploy token for a group"), and the "for a group" scope distinguishes it from delete_project_deploy_token and from create_group_deploy_token in the sibling list. It falls short of 5 only because the differentiation is implicit rather than an explicit statement of when to pick this one over the project-scoped variant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling token tools, no prerequisites (e.g., owner-level access on the group), and no mention that the operation is irreversible and will break any CI job still using the token. The Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate occupies the space where that guidance should be.

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