delete_group

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing refusal conditions (references from DFW rules, gateway firewall, nested groups, service insertion), fail-safe behavior if the check fails, and return format. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: action, return value, usage trigger, refusal conditions, remediation, and parameter list. Well-structured and free of padding despite its length.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers prerequisites (get_group check), failure modes (refusals), remediation steps, and return values. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by explaining 'group_id: ID of the group to delete' and 'target: Optional NSX Manager target from config.' This adds meaning beyond schema titles, though target semantics could be more detailed.

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 '[WRITE] Delete an NSX security group,' a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group, create_group, and update_dfw_rule.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use it once get_group shows the group is unwanted,' and provides alternative actions when refusal names a DFW rule: 'retarget it with update_dfw_rule or drop it with delete_dfw_rule first.' This offers clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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