delete_device_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, states the exact blast radius (group object gone, member devices untouched, only membership removed), and sketches the return shape. It stops short of auth/permission requirements or whether ADOM locking is needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning, then scoping, then args. The Returns block and the example are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists and the call signature is already unambiguous, so a little trimming is possible.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations this covers the essentials: what is destroyed, what is not, and the response keys. The main gap is operational context — required permissions or whether the ADOM must be unlocked — which matters for a delete.

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 0% and both properties are bare title-only strings, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that adom is the ADOM where the group lives and name is the group to delete. Meaning is added, though neither parameter gets format or validation detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a device group from FortiManager") and immediately scopes it: only the group object is removed, member devices survive. That clarification effectively separates it from delete_devices_bulk and the remove_*_from_group siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive warning and the scoping note, but the description never says when to prefer remove_device_from_group / remove_devices_from_group_bulk over deleting the group outright, nor any precondition such as ADOM lock or policy references. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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