delete_access_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely labels the operation as 'mutation deleteAccessGroup', but fails to disclose side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it functions more as a code template than a tool description. It earns some value by stating the mutation name and variables, but lacks structured prose that explains the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is a simple deletion by ID, but the description is minimal and relies on the name for meaning. It does not state what the deletion does, any prerequisites, or the expected result. With no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds an example for 'id' but no additional meaning beyond the schema. It omits mention of 'customer_slug', though the schema covers it adequately.

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 identifies the operation as 'deleteAccessGroup' within 'Access Groups', specifying a deletion mutation. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_group and update_access_group.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the mutation name and variables, without explaining circumstances for deletion or any exclusions.

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