delete_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state the destructive scope ('only the group is removed') and the non-destructive side effect ('lights remain'). However, it does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior, or any consequences for scenes/rules referencing the group. Basic but acceptable.

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 core operation and its most important caveat are front-loaded in a single sentence, with a short args line. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 delete tool with an output schema, this description is nearly complete. Missing contextual details like what happens if the group ID does not exist or whether deletion is irreversible are not critical, but mentioning them would make it fully robust.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that group_id is the numeric group ID to delete, adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema type string. The word 'Numeric' could be slightly ambiguous against the schema type, but it still communicates the intended value.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Delete a light group', and immediately disambiguates the resource by adding '(lights remain, only the group is removed)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_light and delete_sensor.

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 parenthetical clearly communicates what this tool will and will not do: it removes only the group, never the lights. This gives useful context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of delete_light'. The intended use is clear enough for a single-purpose delete.

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