organization_endpoint_group_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'disables' an instance and requires a JSON request body, but fails to explain effects (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on related data), permissions needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a potentially 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 short (two sentences) but the first sentence redundantly repeats the tool name and HTTP method. 'Disable instance of the object' is concise but vague. The structure is acceptable but could be improved with front-loaded, specific information.

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 the tool complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks crucial context: the required identifier in the body, whether it's a soft or hard delete, and how it differs from related tools like organization_endpoint_group_update. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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?

There is one parameter 'body' with 100% schema description coverage (described as 'JSON request body'). The tool description repeats that it requires a JSON request body but adds no further meaning about required fields or structure. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the parameter description is minimal.

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 states 'Disable instance of the object' and includes the HTTP method DELETE, indicating a deletion operation. However, the use of 'Disable' rather than 'Delete' creates ambiguity about whether the action is reversible or permanent. The tool name also clearly indicates deletion, so purpose is partially clear but not precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like organization_endpoint_group_update or other sibling tools. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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