delete_permission_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds the permanent nature and the effect on members' inherited permissions. This goes beyond the structured annotation, providing important context that the deletion is irreversible and cascades to members.

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 sentences with no waste. The purpose and effect are front-loaded, followed by a practical hint for one parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has two required parameters and an output schema, so return format is covered. However, the description omits explanation for group_id and does not mention error conditions or prerequisites beyond workspace_id. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id with a source hint (list_workspaces()), but group_id is left entirely undocumented. With two required parameters, only one is explained, leaving a significant gap.

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 'Permanently delete a permission group' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_permission_group or delete_permission. It also notes the consequence that members lose inherited permissions, clarifying the tool's impact.

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 a practical hint to get workspace IDs from list_workspaces(), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_permission or update_permission_group. The purpose implies usage, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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