remove_group

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the essential traits for a destructive tool: the operation deletes the group and defaults to a non-destructive preview. It omits what happens on failure (missing group, group still referenced by clients), any permission requirements, and whether deletion is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive verb is front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical dry-run/commit flow. It is adequate for a 2-parameter delete, though error behavior on a nonexistent or in-use group is unstated.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the semantics of `confirm` (false = preview, true = execute), which is the parameter an agent could most easily get wrong, but it says nothing about `name` beyond the obvious identifier.

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?

"Delete a group" gives a specific verb and resource, and the resource noun distinctly separates it from the other remove_* siblings (remove_client, remove_adlist, remove_domain). It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like update_group or list_groups, 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?

"Preview unless confirm=true" explains the two-phase invocation pattern: call without confirm to dry-run, then re-call with confirm=true to commit. That is genuine operational guidance. It does not cover when to prefer this over update_group for soft-disabling a group, so no exclusions are given.

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