delete_group

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses important behavior: the tool refuses deletion if the group is referenced, fails safe if the reference check itself fails, and returns a specific status or error shape. This substantially exceeds what annotations 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 compact and dense, with the core action and return behavior front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information: usage trigger, refusal semantics, fail-safe behavior, and remediation. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the success and error return shapes and covers the main operational edge cases (referenced groups, check failure, DFW rule remediation). This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as additional constraints or format guidance for group_id or target. Baseline 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 opens with 'Delete an NSX security group', a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_group, get_group, delete_dfw_policy, and delete_dfw_rule, 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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it once get_group shows the group is unwanted.' It also provides a clear alternative path when deletion is blocked, naming update_dfw_rule and delete_dfw_rule as follow-up actions, which is strong practical guidance.

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