delete_service_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the referential-integrity failure mode, which is real added value. However, it omits permission requirements, whether deletion is reversible, and confirmation behavior expected of a destructive operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetically attaches the one constraint that matters. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key failure condition. The remaining gap is the safety/permission profile, which nothing else supplies given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, so both 'name' and 'vdom' are already documented in the schema, including the VDOM default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete) and resource (service group), which is distinguishable from siblings like delete_service, delete_address_group, and delete_firewall_policy. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the noun phrase is specific enough to route correctly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for success: deletion fails while a policy still references the group. This tells the agent when the call will not work and implies it must detach policies first. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., update_service_group) or stating what to do instead.

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