Permanently removes an Active Directory group by name after validating that the group exists.
Delete a group from Active Directory.
Permanently removes the group object.
Example:
delete_group(group_name="Old Project Team")
Validates group existence before deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_name | Yes | Group name to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits, permanence and existence validation before deletion, but omits critical unknown-ables: required permissions, whether a group containing members can be deleted, what happens to members, and whether any confirmation is returned.
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?
Four short lines, front-loaded with the verb and the permanence warning, and the example earns its space. Slightly loose formatting (the example block inside a one-parameter tool) but nothing is padding.
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 destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the irreversibility and pre-flight validation but leaves the agent without prerequisites (permissions, non-empty group handling) or any indication of what a successful call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for the single parameter, so the baseline applies. The example adds a little naming-convention context, but the description never resolves whether group_name is a display name, sAMAccountName, or distinguished name, which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.
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 and resource ("Delete a group from Active Directory") and the delete-vs-create/modify distinction is self-evident from the verb against the sibling list. It does not name any sibling or scope boundary explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the destructive verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this over modify_group or remove_group_member, nor any exclusion like "use delete_group only after archiving." The example shows a call shape but not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.