delete_client_group

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that members are detached, the UniFi controller is untouched, success=false is returned without confirmation, and the operation is reversible via create_client_group. This gives an agent a clear, accurate behavioral model.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and a clear Args list. There is minor redundancy around the confirm requirement, appearing both in the opening paragraph and the parameter description, but the overall length is justified for a destructive operation.

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 four-parameter destructive tool with destructiveHint already set, the description covers purpose, required confirmation, side effects, recovery path, and the success/failure return signal. Nothing essential for an agent to safely invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's Args section largely restates the schema, and while it emphasizes the confirm no-op behavior, it does not add substantive new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a local group and its memberships.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like create_client_group and assign_client_group, and further scopes it to local-only groups that do not touch the UniFi controller.

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 explicitly states the confirm=true requirement and the no-op behavior without it, which is essential usage guidance. It also points to create_client_group as the recovery path, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer an alternative over this tool.

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