delete_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data (e.g., group members or content), or any rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with just one short sentence ('Delete a group (Qiita Team only)'), making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, resource, and constraint are all communicated without any wasted text, which is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as the consequences of deletion (e.g., whether it's permanent, effects on members/items), required permissions, error conditions, or what the response contains. The 'Qiita Team only' note helps, but overall, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'url_name' clearly documented in the schema as 'Group URL name to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the URL name. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other deletion tools like delete_item or delete_comment by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_group_member, which might cause confusion about scope.

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 includes a contextual constraint ('Qiita Team only'), which provides some guidance on when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like remove_group_member (which might remove members rather than delete the entire group) or provide any prerequisites or warnings about when not to use it.

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