postmd_delete_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive action, owner restriction, default-group protection, the side effect that documents are not deleted, and the required API permission. It could additionally state irreversibility or where the documents go, but the key behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 distinct useful information: the action, ownership and default-group constraints, and the document side effect. There is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permissions, restrictions, and the most important side effect. It does not specify what successful deletion returns or where undeleted documents end up, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 single required parameter groupId is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap. The agent must infer from the parameter name and tool name that groupId identifies the group to delete. This is the weakest dimension because even a brief mention of 'identifies the group to delete' would have sufficed.

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 begins 'Delete a group', which is a specific verb plus resource. It also clarifies important scope restrictions (owner only, default group cannot be deleted), distinguishing this from sibling document and note deletion tools. The intended action is 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 gives clear contexts for safe usage: it can be used to delete a group, but not the default group, and only by the owner with groups:write permission. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the resource distinction clear. The exclusion of the default group serves as an effective when-not condition.

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