ghl_calendar_group_delete

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral insight beyond repeating the endpoint and OAuth scopes. It does not disclose what happens to associated resources (e.g., appointments, slots) or recovery options. The OAuth scopes are useful but not behavioral.

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 very short (three lines) but includes technical details (endpoint, version, OAuth scopes). While concise, these details are somewhat redundant with structured data and do not aid an AI agent in understanding usage. The structure is flat but acceptable.

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 operation with no output schema, the description lacks critical context: what the response looks like (e.g., success code), error conditions (e.g., group not found, group in use), and side effects. The agent is left with minimal information to handle the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description 'Group Id' and an example. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 explicitly states 'Delete Group', which clearly indicates the action (delete) and the resource (calendar group). Among siblings like ghl_calendar_group_create and ghl_calendar_group_update, it is distinct as the delete operation. However, it lacks additional context such as the scope of deletion (e.g., whether it deletes associated appointments).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_calendar_group_update_status or ghl_calendar_group_validate_slug. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or consequences (e.g., cannot be undone). The agent receives no decision support.

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