Delete Group

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

destructiveHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description adds real value beyond it: 'Permanently' signals irreversibility and 'removing all its members' discloses a side effect on other entities. It stops short of stating recovery options or permission-failure behavior.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the permanent/deleting action front-loaded and the cascade consequence attached. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essentials: ownership precondition, irreversibility, and member cascade. Only edge-case behavior (shared resources, failure modes) is unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains that group_id comes from get_groups. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (permanently delete), resource (group), an ownership precondition, and the cascade effect on members. An agent can distinguish this from leave_group or delete_share without opening any schema.

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 ownership condition ('a group the user owns') implies when this is valid, but the description never states when to choose it over leave_group or what happens if ownership is absent. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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