Delete a collector group by ID. Requires write permission and succeeds only when no collectors remain assigned; otherwise the operation blocks.
Delete a collector group (requires write permission). Blocks if collectors are still assigned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Collector group ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds value by specifying the write-permission requirement and the blocking condition when collectors are still assigned. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata, and there is no contradiction.
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?
Two short sentences convey the action, permission requirement, and key blocking behavior. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the operation, required permissions, and the main precondition. With no output schema, a delete response is easily inferable, so the definition is sufficiently complete without being verbose.
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?
The input schema fully documents group_id with the description 'Collector group ID to delete,' so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a collector group' — and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail about blocking when collectors remain assigned. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_collector_group or get_collector_group.
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 provides clear usage context: write permission is required and the operation refuses/blocks if collectors are still assigned. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the constraints give an agent actionable guidance about when this tool will succeed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.