deletes_user_group

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses permanent deletion with 'no undo from this server,' asynchronous processing, server-side auth injection, throttling and retry behavior, HTTP 200/204 success shape, and error payload specifics for 401/403/404/422. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but densely informative, with the destructive warning front-loaded and sections for behavior, returns, and usage guidance. Minor redundancy exists between 'Deletes a specific user group' and 'This endpoint removes a user group,' but every major clause contributes operational value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, async behavior, permanence, auth, throttling, success and error responses, and when to avoid it. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call it and what to expect in response.

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 the single 'id' parameter already described as 'The unique identifier of the user group.' The description adds little beyond stating the deletion is by unique ID, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden and the description meets the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Deletes a specific user group' via DELETE /v2/user_groups/{id}. It names the exact object type and operation, and the sibling-tool list shows distinct related tools for adding, updating, and removing users from groups, so this tool is clearly differentiated.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'only after the user confirms the removal.' It also gives alternatives for non-destructive scenarios: 'To merely revoke access or deactivate, use the matching 🟡 update or unenroll tool instead,' and lists related user-group tools. This is fully actionable guidance.

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