delete_service_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 discloses the failure condition (group in use) and the return format (status/message dictionary), but lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, or side effects beyond the warning.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-liner purpose, a critical warning, then clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (emulated via the Returns block), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, failure condition, and return format.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining 'adom: ADOM name' and 'name: Group name to delete,' which clarifies the parameter roles beyond the schema's generic titles.

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 a service group,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like delete_service, which deletes individual service definitions, leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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, which provides important context for when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly define when to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related operations.

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