delete_address_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes (mutation) and may fail, but it does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects (e.g., no mention of cascading effects). The return structure is described, but behavioral traits are minimal.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one warning, two parameter clarifications, and a return type. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The structure front-loads the action and warning.

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?

Given the simplicity (two required string parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the basic operation and output schema. However, it omits error cases beyond the warning, whether the tool is idempotent, and the expected behavior if the group does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema provides only titles ('Adom', 'Name'), but the description adds meaning by labeling them 'ADOM name' and 'Group name to delete', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., allowed values).

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 clearly states 'Delete an address group.' This is a specific verb and resource combination. Among siblings like delete_address, delete_service_group, etc., it is distinct because it explicitly targets address groups, not individual addresses or other objects.

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 includes a warning that deletion will fail if the group is in use by policies, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_address_group or delete_address). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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