Deletes an account group without disconnecting the underlying social accounts, letting you remove grouped accounts from the scheduling setup while keeping their connections intact.
Delete an account group (does not disconnect the underlying social accounts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description earns credit for disclosing the blast radius — the underlying social accounts are not disconnected — which is the key behavioral question for a destructive group deletion. It stops short of stating irreversibility, what happens to posts/schedules tied to the group, or required permissions.
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 with the action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after it. No filler, no redundancy with the title or annotations.
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 with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent most needs: the action, its target, and the fact that connected social accounts survive. Only the irreversibility and downstream effects of the deleted group are left unstated.
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% with a single required 'id' documented as "Group ID", so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about id format, where to obtain it, or behavior when the id is unknown, 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 ("Delete an account group") and scopes the effect with a parenthetical about social accounts. It is distinguishable from sibling mutators like remove_connections_from_group, but it never explicitly routes the agent away from those alternatives.
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 only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is the tool for removing a group. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to list_account_groups or get_account_group for resolving the id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.