delete_metric_group

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the entire burden and does so well: it declares the operation irreversible, discloses the cascading loss of scoring runs, notes that Evaluators survive, and warns that dependent Experiments lose side-changing and replay-rerun ability (409). That downstream consequence is information an agent could not infer from the schema or from any other sibling.

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 destructive warning and cascade scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right ordering. It loses a point for retaining Sphinx docstring artifacts (":param", ":returns") and hard line breaks that add noise rather than information.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers reversibility, cascade behavior, retained entities, the referential-integrity failure mode, and what a success versus error response looks like. There is no material gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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 only parameter text is ":param metric_group_id: The Metric Group's id," which essentially restates the property title. It does not say where to obtain the id (for example from list_metric_groups), so the schema gap is not really compensated, but with a single obvious required identifier the omission is minor.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a Metric Group") plus the cascade scope ("together with all its scoring runs"), which is exactly the detail that separates it from update_metric_group and list_metric_groups in the sibling set.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — confirm with the user ("get a yes first") — and explains the blocking case where hub-api refuses while the group is still referenced. It does not name a sibling alternative or spell out when deleting is preferable to updating, so it falls short of a full when/when-not rubric.

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