blueprint_delete_property_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the underlying HTTP route (DELETE /properties/api/property-groups/{propertyGroupId}), not what else is affected — e.g. whether consumers of the group are detached or broken. Useful context, but thin for a destructive mutation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus the endpoint line — no filler prose. The REST route largely duplicates what the annotations' title already convey, so it is marginally redundant rather than harmful.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the basic shape of the call is fully conveyed by the schema and annotations. What is missing is consequence information: what a deleted property group orphans, and whether the call fails on in-use groups — the pieces an agent would need to act safely.

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%, with propertyGroupId typed as uuid and marked '(path)', and apiVersion documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond the route template that echoes the same parameter, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a property group'), which distinguishes it from the sibling read/update operations (blueprint_get_property_group, blueprint_update_property_group, blueprint_list_property_groups). It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no statement of prerequisites (ownership/permissions), and no caution that deletion is irreversible or that a group still referenced by blueprints may fail. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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