modx_delete_user_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates that this deletes. It does not disclose that the operation is destructive and irreversible, what happens to existing group members, roles, or attached access policies, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and identifier front-loaded, and no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the same sentence could have carried one clause of warning at no structural cost.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot predict side effects on group membership, access control entries, or dependent resources from this text.

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%, but the single parameter is self-describing in type (number) and the phrase "by id" confirms the value identifies the target user group rather than some other entity. That is a small but real addition beyond the bare schema, though it gives no guidance on where to obtain the id.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Delete a user group") that clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as modx_delete_user, modx_delete_role, or modx_delete_access_policy. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the non-destructive user-group siblings (modx_get_user_group, modx_update_user_group), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is not told whether the group must be empty first, or which related tools (e.g., modx_remove_user_from_group, modx_get_user_group) to consult before deleting.

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