createValuesGroup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '创建新的值分组' (Create new value group) implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase in Chinese. While this avoids waste, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise. It front-loads the core action but lacks necessary detail. Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), more content would be justified, but what's there is structured efficiently.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'value group' is, how it relates to other entities (values, rules), what happens after creation, or provide any context for proper usage. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'name' parameter is documented in the schema as '分组名称' - group name), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'name', provide examples, or add any semantic context, so it meets but doesn't exceed the minimum.

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 '创建新的值分组' (Create new value group) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'createValuesGroup' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what a 'value group' is, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'createGroup' or 'createValue'. The purpose is stated but lacks differentiation and specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createGroup', 'createValue', 'addValueToGroup', and 'addRuleToGroup', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what context it operates in. This leaves the agent guessing about tool selection.

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