remove_group_from_group

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden: it makes clear this is a destructive membership change and documents the return keys (status/message), which is useful. It omits critical operational context for FortiManager mutations such as whether the ADOM must be locked first and what happens if child_group is not actually nested under parent_group.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single precise sentence, followed by compact Args/Returns/Example blocks. The Returns section partially duplicates the output schema, but overall there is little waste.

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 three-required-parameter nesting mutation, the definition covers what is removed and the result shape, and an output schema already exists so return detail is not required. Gaps remain around locking/permission requirements and whether removing a subgroup affects that group's own children or contents.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only source: parent_group ('group that currently contains child_group') and child_group ('nested group to remove') add real relational meaning, and the example shows these are group names rather than IDs. However, adom is only glossed as 'ADOM name' with no format or enumeration guidance, so compensation for the 0% coverage is partial.

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: removing a nested group from its parent device group, which is distinguishable from siblings like add_group_to_group, remove_device_from_group, or delete_device_group. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the resource rather than spelled out.

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 Example block shows a concrete invocation, which implies the intended usage context, but nothing states when to use this versus add_group_to_group (inverse) or the bulk device-removal siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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