delete_group

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond this by explaining exactly how idempotency works: calling again on an already-deleted group by ID is a no-op, but by name it is not. It also discloses the confirmation requirement when confirm=false. This adds valuable behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 moderately sized but every sentence contributes unique value: purpose, identification, confirmation, alternative tool, and idempotency edge cases. It starts with the core action and flows logically. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and not verbose.

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, idempotent tool with a confirmation mechanism, this description covers all necessary aspects: how to identify the resource, the confirmation behavior, the difference in handling already-deleted groups by ID vs name, and the restoration alternative. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required here. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: group_id and group_name are explained as identification methods with different post-deletion behaviors, and confirm is explained as controlling whether the action previews or directly deletes. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a Splitwise group.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from undelete_group, which is a sibling tool, and explains the confirmation behavior. This eliminates ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from related operations.

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 context for when to use this tool: to delete a group, with the option to preview before deletion. It explicitly mentions undelete_group as the alternative for restoration, and explains the behavioral difference when identifying by group_id vs group_name. While it doesn't say 'do not use this if...', the guidance is sufficient for an agent to make an appropriate selection.

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