terminate_group

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, but the description goes well beyond them: irreversible permanence, effect on all members, inability to send messages or start calls afterward, admin-rights requirement, and the exact behavior of the confirm gate (no-op plus error if not true). This is rich behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE AND IRREVERSIBLE warning, then prerequisites, then the sibling alternative, then parameter semantics. Dense but every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, authorization, the confirmation gate, the alternative sibling, and even the return shape (status and group_id). Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it ties group_id to list_groups and, more importantly, defines the policy for confirm (must be true, otherwise nothing happens and an error is returned; only set after an explicit user request). That goes beyond the schema's generic 'prevents accidental termination'.

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 (terminate) and resource (Signal group), plus scope (FOR ALL MEMBERS), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling leave_group. An agent can distinguish it from leave_group, update_group, and delete_message 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?

Explicit when-to-use (end the group for everyone, requires admin rights), when-not (use leave_group to exit yourself), and a policy constraint that confirm should only be set after the user explicitly asked. Alternatives and exclusions are named outright.

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