delete_util_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature for member utils and the cascade of affected steps, which are significant side effects. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the key side effects are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The most important caveat (member utils are moved, not destroyed) is front-loaded, and the reference to set_util_group_name avoids repeating complex cascade details.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, what happens to member utils, and how cascade behaves. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without missing critical side effects.

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 'name' parameter is implied by the tool purpose and the description, even though the schema lacks a description. The 'project' parameter is described in the schema. The description adds enough context for the primary parameter, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action: deleting a util group. Explicitly distinguishes from destroying member utils by saying they are moved to 'custom-utils', which is critical for understanding the tool's actual effect.

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?

Explains the behavior of moving member utils and references set_util_group_name for cascade semantics. This gives good guidance, though it stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this tool over alternatives like delete_util or set_util_group_name.

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