Delete a contact group

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: it is irreversible ('Cannot be undone') and it does not delete the underlying contacts. This clarifies side effects that an agent needs to know before calling.

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, each carrying essential information: what is removed, what is preserved, and that the action is irreversible. No filler, no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema and annotation hints present, the description covers the core semantics and critical side effects. The confirm_token flow is only in the schema, but that is acceptable since the schema documents it fully. The definition is largely complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both parameters (id and confirm_token) already explained in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it correctly stays at the baseline where the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Removes a group card.' It also distinguishes itself from contact deletion by clarifying 'The contacts that were in it are not touched — only the grouping goes.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among sibling tools like delete_contact and list_groups.

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 gives useful context: this tool removes the grouping but not the contacts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, such as 'To delete the contacts themselves, use delete_contact.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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