forcepoint_group_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the operation is high-risk and mandates an authorizationKey under admin auth, which is valuable. However, it omits side effects (e.g., whether members are removed, whether deletion is permanent) or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent 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 that this is a high-risk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on return values, error handling, reversibility, and cascading effects, which are critical for an agent deciding to invoke a destructive operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that authorizationKey is conditionally required, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare `minLength`. 'groupname' is implied as the target, but 'userId' is entirely unexplained, leaving a key parameter ambiguous.

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 'Delete a Forcepoint group' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like group_add_members, group_remove_members, or group_create_or_update by stating the delete action 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?

The description clearly indicates the action's intent—deleting a group—which implicitly tells the agent when to use it. It also adds caution with 'High-risk mutation' and notes the conditional authorizationKey requirement, providing useful usage context though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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