delete_ip_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete', which implies destructiveness, but gives no information about irreversibility, failure conditions, or side effects. The agent is left unaware of potential consequences or errors.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, which is good. However, it is under-specified for a tool with parameters and potential side effects. While it conveys the core purpose efficiently, it lacks substance that could be added without significant length, making it less appropriately sized than a fully helpful description.

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 tool is a delete operation with 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how group_id and ip_type are used, what happens after deletion, or any constraints. The description is insufficiently complete for an agent to understand the full context of the tool.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (group_id, ip_type). The agent cannot infer what ip_type represents (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6) or that group_id is the identifier of the group to delete. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 '删除 IP 地址分组' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (IP address group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ip_groups and add_ip_group, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention whether the group must be empty or if deletion is disallowed when the group is in use by other rules. The description only states the action with no exclusions or contextual conditions.

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