group_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除分组' (delete group) implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated resources, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - just two characters in Chinese. While this may be too brief for effective tool selection, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every character serves the purpose of stating the tool's action, making it maximally efficient in terms of word count.

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 annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the basic verb, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no usage guidelines. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description provides no information about the 'ids' parameter - it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, whether they're group IDs, how to obtain them, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 '删除分组' (delete group) states the action and resource, which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about scope - it doesn't specify whether this deletes a single group or multiple groups, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like 'env_remove' or 'proxy_remove'. The description provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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. There are multiple 'remove' tools in the sibling list (env_remove, proxy_remove), but the description doesn't explain when to use group_remove specifically. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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