Delete A Single Group

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

Discloses permanence ('Permanently removes the group. This cannot be undone'), repeat-call behavior (404), and common HTTP error statuses. Adds context about the stranded entities prevention mechanism and the list of Project/People IDs returned on failure - all beyond annotations.

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 longer than necessary but every sentence contributes: purpose, constraint, verification step, permanence, error behavior, required params, endpoint. Structured and front-loaded with the core action. A concise rewrite could trim the stranded-entities rationale, but it's justified.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, constraints, error handling, and defaults. It's comprehensive and lets an agent invoke it correctly.

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 already covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds that company_id defaults to procore_set_config value and group_id must resolve to an existing parent, which are semantics not in the schema. This elevates it to 4.

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?

Description opens with 'Delete a single Group in a given ID' - a clear verb+resource+scope statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_a_single_group and update_a_single_group by explicitly stating deletion and including the endpoint.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: confirm target id with matching show/list tool, and group_id must identify an existing parent record. Also warns about the constraint that groups with active Projects/People cannot be deleted, and explains the error response in that case. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools, so it's clear but without exclusions.

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