delete_configuration_group

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

Annotations already indicate that this tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether deletion cascades or what happens to associated data.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded but slightly too brief; additional context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of the irreversible nature or side effects, which are important for such a tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (code and id). Therefore, even though the tool description does not elaborate on parameters, the baseline score is 3.

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 uses a clear verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource 'configuration group from a project', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_configuration_group' and other delete operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (to delete a configuration group) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the group must exist or that deletion may affect dependent entities.

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