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

Annotations only mark it as non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds far more: this writes to chain, produces an unsigned intent rather than a committed effect, and nothing occurs until an external sign-and-submit cycle. That is exactly the state-changing behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

Two tight sentences: the creation action first, then the two-step write/sign/submit consequence. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 six-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknown — that the call yields an unsigned intent needing external signing and submission. It does not say what the prepared intent contains or how the new group is later referenced, but with no return contract to satisfy this is close to complete.

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 83%, so most parameters (file_url, description, first_message, new_group_name) are already documented, and the description's only parameter reference is `signer`, tying it to the signing flow. No additional format or constraint detail is supplied beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a messaging group with a first message'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like geode_messaging_make_a_new_list, geode_messaging_join_a_group, and geode_messaging_update_group_settings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent through the correct completion path — sign with geode-local-signer, then submit with geode_submit_intent — which is essential usage context for this tool family. It does not contrast with near-neighbors (new list vs new group), but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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