deleteGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Delete group' only states the action itself, but does not mention consequences (e.g., cascading effects on group memberships), irreversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.

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 extremely brief at two words, which is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It front-loads the action but omits critical details such as parameter meaning and side effects, so every sentence does not earn its place.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, nested parameter structure, and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no context about what group deletion entails, how groupId identifies the group, or what happens to related data.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of groupId or format, even though these are nested in a required pathParams object. The schema provides basic names and types, but the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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 'Delete group' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (group), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like deleteProject and deleteUser by resource name. However, it lacks any additional context about scope or specific group types, so it doesn't fully earn 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where a different delete tool (e.g., deleteProject) should be used instead. This is a clear gap for a destructive operation.

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