ncloud_mailer_delete_recipient_group

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: the tool is destructive, requires confirm=true to execute, and has a deprecation timeline. It also clarifies availability restrictions (migrated projects only) and points to replacement APIs, providing transparency beyond the structured 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 a single dense paragraph with legacy context in brackets, followed by the destructive warning and operation. It is front-loaded with the most critical info (legacy status, destructive nature, confirm requirement), though the legacy note is slightly verbose. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential operational context: the HTTP method and path, the requirement for confirm=true, the legacy status and deprecation window, and alternative newer APIs. With the schema fully documenting parameters and annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters (region, confirm, groupName). The description reiterates the confirm requirement but adds no new information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Delete one recipient group) and the exact HTTP endpoint, making the resource and operation unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (address book, addresses) by naming the specific resource type, so an agent can select it 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?

The description provides context on when to use this tool: it's legacy, available only to migrated projects, and suggests newer SENS alternatives for mail sending/lookup (ncloud_sens_send_mail / ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other deletion tools within the mailer family, though the resource name alone differentiates it.

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