firebase_appdistribution_delete_groupDelete a Firebase App Distribution tester group by its full resource name. Use it to remove obsolete groups and revoke test access.
Deletes a tester group by its full resource name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupName | Yes | e.g. "projects/{project_number}/groups/{group_alias}" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it provides only the identifier form. It omits the key mutation semantics an agent needs: that deletion is destructive and likely irreversible, whether group membership/testers are affected, permission/scope requirements, and whether the call fails on a missing group. This is adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource plus its key qualifier, with no redundant or filler content.
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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum signal irreversibility and the consequence for existing tester memberships. The parameter side is fully covered by the schema, but the risk/behavioral side is not.
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% and the single parameter includes an example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds 'full resource name' as a mild reinforcement but no syntax or naming detail beyond the schema example, so 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 (deletes) and resource (tester group), with the disambiguating 'by its full resource name'. Among siblings it is clearly distinct from firebase_appdistribution_create_group and firebase_appdistribution_remove_testers_from_group, though the description itself does not name those siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and verb (delete a group), and the phrase 'by its full resource name' signals the identifier format. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as remove_testers_from_group, which is the more surgical operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.