cigchat_team_delete_agent_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is destructive and irreversible, instructs the two-step confirmation flow (call without confirm first), and names the required token scope. This goes beyond just describing the action and properly warns the agent of the risk.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences that cover purpose, danger, workflow, and permission. Every sentence contributes essential information, and there is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 simple two-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is deleted, irreversibility, confirmation sequence, and required scope. It is complete enough for an agent to safely invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'confirm' already described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; the 'call once without confirm' advice mainly reinforces the confirm parameter's behavior rather than introducing new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with the specific verb+resource 'Delete agent group' and includes the HTTP endpoint, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigchat_team_create_agent_group and cigchat_team_update_agent_group, which modify rather than delete.

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 gives clear usage context: it is a destructive irreversible operation that requires a preliminary call without 'confirm' to receive an impact statement, and it mandates the 'Manage Team' scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative update/unassign tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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