delete_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a group, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., impact on associated employees). No information on authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions is included, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource ('group'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if group doesn't exist), permissions required, or system constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'groupId' documented as 'The group ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find group IDs. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a group by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_group' and 'update_group' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'group' refers to in this context (e.g., employee group, project group), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist, user must have permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete groups with active members), or related tools like 'list_groups' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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