delete_service_group

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the deletion is staged in candidate config and does not take effect until 'commit' is run. This is valuable context that neither the annotations nor the schema provide.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the key behavioral tag, states the action, and then provides the critical staging/commit detail. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, the destructive nature, the staged-config behavior, and the required commit step. No output schema exists, but none is needed here. Minor missing context like referencing dependent objects is not essential for basic correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents both 'name' and 'firewall' clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a service group,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_service_object and delete_address_group. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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 implies usage through the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_service_object or set_config. It provides operational context about candidate config and commit, but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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