GroupClassesDelete

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it specifies that the group class is removed and notes that client-side approval is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short and front-loads the core action. There is slight redundancy among 'Delete', 'Destructive', and 'removes the group class', but the warning and approval requirement are valuable and concise.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, this description covers the essential behavior and an important workflow requirement. It could mention side effects or irreversibility, but it is not badly incomplete.

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?

The schema documents the only parameter, classId, with full coverage. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline 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 and resource: 'Delete a group class.' This is specific enough for an agent to know what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like GroupClassesUpdate or IndividualClassesDelete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The warning and 'Requires client-side approval' are safety-oriented rather than usage-selection guidance.

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