delete_address_group

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — referential-integrity enforcement that will cause the call to fail — plus a return value. However, for a destructive operation it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and what happens to group members on deletion.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, then short parameter and return sections. The parameter list largely duplicates the schema, which is the only wasted space.

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 destructive, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the definition should say more: whether deletion is irreversible, whether dependent references must be removed first by the agent, and what the deletion status actually contains. The referential-integrity note is the only substantive behavioral content.

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%, so the schema already documents device_id, name, and vdom. The description's parameter list restates those same glosses without adding format, examples, or vdom-defaulting behavior, 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 and resource ("Delete an address group"), which cleanly separates it from the create/update/list address-group siblings and from delete_address_object or delete_service_object. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource noun carries the distinction.

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 note that FortiOS refuses while a policy still references the group gives a real precondition an agent should check (e.g., via list_firewall_policies or lookup_policy), but usage is implied rather than stated as explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or an alternative path.

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