delete_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key non-destructive-to-tables behavior ('таблицы остаются в схеме'), adding value beyond the tool name. However, it omits other potentially important behaviors such as effects on relationships, branch behavior, or reversibility, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 compact, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes only a minimal parameter list. No wasted words.

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 simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core side effect (tables remain) and parameters. It could be more complete by noting relationship handling or error scenarios, but for a delete-group operation it is reasonably sufficient.

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?

The description includes a brief Args list (schema_uuid: UUID схемы, group_uuid: UUID группы, branch_name: Ветка схемы), but these are essentially restatements of the parameter names, and the schema already provides the default for branch_name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not meaningfully compensate by explaining formats, constraints, or usage nuances.

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 it deletes a group of tables ('Удалить группу таблиц') and adds the crucial qualifier that the tables themselves remain in the schema. This verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_table, delete_schema, and delete_relationship.

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 usage by indicating that it deletes a group while preserving tables, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool references. Unlike higher-scoring tools, there is no mention of when to prefer this over delete_table or delete_schema.

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