delete_gateway_group

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial consequence 'irreversible', which goes beyond the annotation. It does not mention dependencies or the confirm/dry_run safety gate, but those are covered in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, with a clear 'WARNING: This is irreversible.' every word earns its place with no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The schema and annotations are rich, and the irreversible warning is valuable, but the description lacks context about when to use this tool and what the deletion implies for dependent routing or firewall objects. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% with detailed descriptions for group_id, confirm, dry_run, and apply_immediately. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond restating 'by ID', so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('gateway group'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gateway_group, update_gateway_group, and search_gateway_groups.

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. It does not mention that search_gateway_groups should be used to obtain the ID or that update_gateway_group is the correct tool for modifications, leaving the selection entirely to the agent.

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