Delete Forms integration-group condition

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only the targeted condition group is removed while others persist, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, or side effects on the integration group.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier is placed where it reads naturally. Efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive operation.

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?

With three required params, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note on irreversibility or what the caller observes after deletion, which for a destructive tool is a meaningful gap.

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 each parameter description already names its source tool (hooks_list, surveys_list, matching *_list). The prose adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one condition group from an integration group.' An agent can distinguish it from the hook_create/update/set_operator siblings. Minor terminology drift ('condition group' here vs 'condition' in the title/name) keeps it from 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The clause 'the others stay untouched' clarifies scope of effect but not when this tool should be chosen over, say, updating the condition or deleting the whole hook.

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