hostgroup_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by stating the deletion is permanent and by clarifying the precise side effect on hosts: they cease to be group members but are not themselves removed unless explicitly deleted. This is valuable context for a destructive operation.

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 compact: two sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the important side-effect clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, states permanence, explains what happens to hosts, and is supported by a fully described input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering mutability and destructiveness. Nothing essential for deciding to call the tool is missing.

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 schema has 100% description coverage: 'groupids' is already described as 'Group IDs to delete,' with minItems: 1 confirming that one or more IDs can be supplied. The description generally reinforces that idea but adds little new meaning about the parameter format, source, or behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete host groups from Zabbix.' It further clarifies the exact scope of the operation: 'Permanently removes one or more host groups,' and distinguishes the effect from deleting hosts by explaining that hosts remain unless explicitly deleted. This is enough to separate it from sibling tools like host_delete.

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 explains what the tool does but does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or explicitly name the sibling to use when hosts also need to be removed. It hints that hosts remain unless explicitly deleted, which implies a separate deletion path, but it never says 'use host_delete for that purpose.' No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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