Delete a label group

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes further by naming what is destroyed (the group and its values) and that the action is irreversible, plus a required user confirmation step. That is exactly the extra context a destructive tool needs beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, then the alternative, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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, the description covers impact, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, the safe alternative, and even the returned fields. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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% for the single label_id parameter, with the 24-char hex pattern documented in the schema itself. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format or validation meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource — 'Permanently deletes a label group and its values by id' — and implicitly separates itself from the update sibling. An agent can tell exactly what object this removes and what scope of data goes with it.

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 when-not path: to stop workers applying it while keeping it, use heliyos_labels_update with is_active false. It also adds a procedural precondition ('confirm with the user first'), leaving nothing to inference about which tool to pick.

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