delete_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascade delete behavior, which is critical, but doesn't mention other behavioral traits like permissions required, whether deletion is irreversible, error conditions (e.g., if group doesn't exist), or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a group') and adds essential detail ('and all its child groups (cascade delete)') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying scope.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions cascade delete but omits critical details like confirmation requirements, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with such complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description doesn't add specific meaning to the 'groupId' parameter beyond what the schema provides (schema description coverage is 100%, with 'Group ID to delete'). However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is high, and the description implicitly reinforces that groupId identifies the group to delete, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a group'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'all its child groups (cascade delete)', which differentiates it from other deletion tools like delete_note or delete_todo that likely don't cascade.

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 implies usage for deleting groups with child groups, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like delete_workspace or update_group for removal, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if group has active dependencies). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance.

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