nex_browser_group_delete

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

destructiveHint=true already signals a destructive operation; the description adds the important non-obvious consequence that contained windows survive and become ungrouped, plus the built-in rejection of groupId 0. It omits whether deletion is reversible or what permissions/workspace state is required.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, side effect second, constraint last. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the collateral effect on child windows, and the one invalid input. A note on the return value (e.g., confirmation or affected group) and the required-parameter ambiguity would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so 'id' (alias of groupId) and 'groupId' are already fully documented, and the description's note that groupId 0 is rejected duplicates the schema text. It adds nothing about the alias relationship or the fact that neither parameter is marked required, leaving an ambiguity the schema does not resolve.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('one custom window group') scoped to the active NexBrowser workspace. It clearly separates this from group creation/listing by naming the custom (non-zero) group as the target. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it could be confused with (nex_browser_group_modify).

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 exclusion 'the ungrouped bucket (groupId 0) cannot be deleted' gives a concrete when-not constraint, and 'custom window group' implies only user-created groups are eligible. However, it never says when to prefer nex_browser_group_modify over deletion or what prerequisites exist, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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