delete_permission_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing critical traits: whether deletion is irreversible, cascades to memberships, requires admin permissions, or has safety checks. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence of 5 words, placing the verb first. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. Highly efficient.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description omits crucial context: confirmation, reversibility, error handling. It does not mention what happens if the group does not exist or if it has dependencies. The brevity leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Although the schema describes the 'id' parameter as 'Permission group ID', the tool description does not mention or clarify parameters. With 0% schema description coverage from the tool description, it fails to compensate for the 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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a permission group from Metabase'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_permission_group' or 'update_permission_group' by specifying the delete operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., group existence), and no mention of side effects or failure modes (e.g., if group has members). This lack of usage context forces the agent to infer appropriate conditions.

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