scim_delete_group

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals a write/destroy operation, and the description adds value beyond it by disclosing the cascade side effect ('automatically removes the group from all member users') and a hard precondition (reserved groups are undeletable). It does not cover auth requirements or failure behavior for non-existent group IDs.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, ordered by importance: action, hard constraint, side effect. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential risk surface: irreversibility is implied by the annotation, cascade impact and the reserved-group guard are explicit. Minor gaps remain around authorization and error conditions on invalid IDs.

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% for the single group_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter's meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Delete a SCIM group'), and the 'SCIM' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling delete_group, which operates on a different group model. An agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion: reserved permission groups cannot be deleted, which is a real when-not condition an agent must know before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. scim_update_group for modifying membership instead of deleting), so it is not fully prescriptive.

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