delete_group

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

Even with destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description adds rich behavioral context: it refuses deletion if any entity references the group, covers all reference classes (DFW, gateway, nested groups, etc.), and includes a fail-safe on check failure. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a [WRITE] tag, a one-sentence action statement, a paragraph detailing refusal conditions, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of the tool (destructive, with dependency checks), the description covers the main behavior and edge cases. However, it omits details on return values (no output schema) and whether the operation is synchronous. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a well-annotated tool.

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 carries full burden. It provides brief but clear semantics for both parameters (group_id: ID of group, target: optional NSX Manager target). While minimal, it adds meaning beyond the schema's type and titles.

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 an NSX security group,' providing a clear verb+resource pair. This is distinct from sibling tools like create_group, get_group, and list_groups, leaving no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but it clearly details preconditions (refuses if references exist). This gives implicit guidance on when deletion is safe or blocked, which is practical for the agent.

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