User Group Del

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only flags '危险写操作'. It does not disclose what is actually destroyed (does deleting a group delete its member accounts? orphan their data?), whether the operation is reversible, or what auth/permission level is required — all critical for an irreversible delete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, and the danger flag is prominent. It is efficient, though perhaps terse for an irreversible delete operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive delete with no annotations the description omits the impact on group members, reversibility, and permission requirements. It is materially under-specified for the operation's risk level.

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%, so all five parameters (host, port, group, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the required 'group' parameter or connection params, but the schema does the heavy lifting, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('删除用户组'), so the agent knows this removes a user group. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like user_group_del_users (which removes members), user_group_mod, or user_group_add, all of which operate on the same resource.

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 user_group_mod, user_group_del_users, or user_group_set_users. No prerequisites (permissions, group must be empty) or preconditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer routing entirely from the name.

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