Create Server Group

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

Annotations indicate destructive operation and open world hint. The description adds the live-verified range for refresh_interval, but does not expand on other behavioral aspects like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. Given annotations, the description provides marginal extra value.

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 short (2 sentences) and gets to the point, but it omits important information that would be necessary for safe tool selection and invocation.

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 7 parameters, no enums, and a destructive operation, the description should provide context on required parameters, constraints, and typical use cases. It only covers refresh_interval, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Only the refresh_interval parameter is described (the same as in the schema), leaving the other 6 parameters undocumented. With only 14% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new Automox server group, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_server_group or delete_server_group, but the name and purpose are self-explanatory.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., parent group must exist), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional.

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