Delete group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation is a soft delete, the group leaves the active list, and it is reversible via restore.

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 with zero filler, and the crucial semantic qualifier ('soft delete') is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs: it is reversible and affects visibility. It stops short of stating permission requirements or explicitly pointing at the restore counterpart.

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 both group_id and the optional farm_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., default-farm resolution behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Archive (soft delete) a group') and immediately clarifies the actual semantics, which differs from what the name 'delete' implies. An agent can distinguish this from a hard-delete or from restore_group without opening the schema.

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 implied by the semantics: use this to hide a group while keeping it restorable. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over a true delete, nor does it name restore_group as the paired recovery tool, leaving the routing to inference.

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