Delete group link

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains two important behaviors: subsequent links move up a number, and the operation returns the whole new list. It does not discuss failure modes or whether removal can be undone, but it meaningfully supplements the 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 short and front-loads the core action, but 'Admins only' is repeated in both sentences without adding new information. The second sentence is otherwise efficient and informative.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, admin restriction, numbering side effect, and return value. Remaining gaps around error handling or reversibility are minor given the annotations and fully documented parameters.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already carry most meaning. The description still adds useful context by explaining that deleting one link shifts the numbering of links after it, which clarifies the significance of the 'number' parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a link from the group's sidebar.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like add_group_link, update_group_link, and list_group_links, and it clarifies that exactly one sidebar link is removed.

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?

It gives the key prerequisite, 'Admins only,' and grounds the action in the familiar UI path 'Settings, Links, Delete.' It does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_group_link or list_group_links, but the intended use is clear.

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