placetel_delete_groupDeletes a Placetel group by ID, removing it from the account when no longer needed. Use for destructive cleanup of obsolete groups.
Delete a group. (DELETE /groups/{id}) Destructive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Destructive.' adds nothing beyond structured data. The description does not say what deletion removes (members, assignments, routing references), whether it is reversible, or what error occurs for a nonexistent or in-use group.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and resource; nothing superfluous. It is arguably under-written rather than padded, but the sizing itself is efficient.
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?
A simple two-parameter delete with no output schema and full annotation coverage, so the basics are present. However, for a destructive operation the description never explains the consequences of removal (side effects on group membership or dependent configuration) or failure modes, which an agent needs before invoking it.
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% and both parameters (id, response_format) are documented there. The description only echoes the {id} path parameter from the endpoint string, adding no new meaning, so 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+resource ('Delete a group') and includes the underlying endpoint (DELETE /groups/{id}), which unambiguously separates it from placetel_get_group, placetel_update_group, placetel_list_groups and the many other delete_* siblings. It is not explicitly differentiated in prose, but the name and verb leave no ambiguity.
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 indication of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. update_group to modify instead of remove), no prerequisites, and no mention of what must happen to group members first. The only guidance is the bare word 'Destructive.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.