ncloud_detach_policy_from_group

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

With destructiveHint=true already in annotations, the description still adds the ⚠️ Destructive warning, the confirmation guard, and the body-vs-path placement detail. This provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema alone convey.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The destructive warning and core action are front-loaded, followed by the API-specific placement detail and the confirm requirement.

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 operation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the action, warning, required confirmation flag, and parameter placement. It relies on the schema for groupId and the policyId/policyIdList choice, which is acceptable since schema coverage is complete.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that policy IDs are transmitted via policyIdList in the request body and that no policy ID belongs in the path, complementing the schema's per-parameter 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 states a specific action ('Remove one or more IAM policies from a group') with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from close siblings like attach_policy_to_group and detach_policy_from_sub_account by naming the target resource ('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 clarifies the key execution requirement (set confirm=true) and an API nuance (policy IDs go in the body as policyIdList, not in the path). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the verb and resource make the primary use case clear.

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