Delete a field group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations: it explains that stored values are not lost and the group can be re-registered, effectively qualifying the destructive nature. This is important behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, making the description a meaningful complement.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a critical behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 (three parameters, one required, no output schema). The description covers the core purpose and the most important side effect (data retention, re-registration). It does not explicitly mention the confirm parameter's requirement, but that is fully documented in the schema, and the annotations already flag destructiveness. Thus, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (confirm, site_id, group_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It sticks to the operation's semantics, so it matches the baseline for full 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?

The description states a clear action ('Remove a registered field group') with a specific resource ('field group'). It adds useful context by explaining that stored values are left in place, distinguishing it from generic data-deletion tools. This clearly separates it from other delete_* siblings by naming the exact resource type.

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 context by noting the non-destructive nature of the removal (values preserved, re-registration possible), which helps an agent decide when to use it (e.g., to temporarily hide a group) versus other tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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