Delete a device group by ID, with options to permanently delete and remove child groups. The tool shows impact before executing and requires write permission.
Delete a device/resource group (requires write permission). Shows impact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Group ID to delete | |
| delete_hard | No | Permanently delete | |
| delete_children | No | Delete child devices/groups |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds a write-permission requirement and a vague 'Shows impact' claim, but it does not disclose cascading behavior, soft-delete semantics, or permanent deletion implications beyond what the schema parameters imply. No contradiction with annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, which is efficient. However, 'Shows impact' is ambiguous and does not clearly earn its place; it could mislead the agent about what output or behavior to expect.
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 destructive tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no clarification of hard-delete versus soft-delete or child cascading, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the consequences of deletion, the meaning of delete_hard, or what 'shows impact' actually entails.
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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the structured data; 'Shows impact' may hint at consequences but does not meaningfully clarify delete_hard or delete_children semantics. 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 device/resource group'), making the core operation clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_collector_group or delete_recipient_group, but the resource type is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from delete_device or bulk_delete_devices.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires write permission') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of when soft vs hard deletion is appropriate, when delete_children should be used, or how this differs from deleting individual devices or collector groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.