delete_group

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description adds critical nuance by clarifying this is a soft delete (archive) and that the group can be restored. This goes beyond the bare annotation and sets accurate expectations about reversibility, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. There is no contradiction; the description enriches the behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Archive (soft delete) a group') and immediately follows with the key consequence (hidden from active list, restorable). Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan 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?

For a simple mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential effects: the soft-delete nature, the visibility change, and reversibility. It does not mention potential side effects like cascading actions or permissions, but given the simple scope and the presence of annotations, it is adequately complete. Adding a pointer to restore_group would have made it more complete, but it is not a significant gap.

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% and both parameters (group_id and farm_id) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline. The description does not explain how to obtain group_id or any format requirements, but the schema already covers that.

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 a specific verb ('Archive') and resource ('a group'), and explicitly notes it is a soft delete, which distinguishes it from a hard delete. It also mentions the effect (hidden from active list) and reversibility, making the purpose unmistakable. This is far from a tautology and immediately differentiates from other delete tools like delete_record or delete_animal.

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 implies the tool is for archiving groups and mentions it can be restored, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as restore_group or other delete tools. It does not mention exclusions or provide routing guidance to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and behavior. A more explicit note about using restore_group for undo would have been helpful.

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