tc_delete_group

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses a critical side effect: 'any folder permission granted to this group disappears with it.' It also explains the safety gate (confirm must be true) and the environment flag requirement, adding significant behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose line, a warning, requirements, parameter explanations, and a return format. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of what the schema already shows.

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 delete operation, the description covers what is deleted, the side effect on permissions, required conditions, parameter semantics, and the expected return value. This is complete enough for an AI agent to execute correctly with minimal ambiguity.

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 zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for 'confirm' (must be true, safety gate) and identifies project_id/group_id as IDs, though it doesn't explain them beyond that. This is adequate but not rich, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Delete a project group' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tc_create_group, tc_rename_group, and tc_list_groups. The destructive consequence is also highlighted, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 makes clear this tool is for deleting a project group and includes prerequisites (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1, confirm=true). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the unambiguous purpose.

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