Delete Contact_group

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

Adds significant detail about cascading deletes with concrete examples and mentions HTTP 204 response, going beyond annotations which only indicate destructive hint.

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?

Description is fairly concise but includes generic examples of cascading deletes that may be slightly extraneous; still efficient overall.

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?

Covers purpose, destructive behavior, and return type. Could mention error handling (e.g., 404 if id not found) but sufficient for a simple delete tool.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the id parameter; description repeats it but adds no new semantic meaning.

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 'Delete a contact_group from NetBox by numeric id', which is specific with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that delete other objects.

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?

Explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible nature, advises user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like using netbox_get_contact_group first to verify the object.

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