zerodom_create_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden, and it does so well: persistence across browser restarts, extension-side storage, the enforcement rule that attaching to non-agent tabs is refused, and the relay-mode restriction. Gaps remain on mutation edge cases (duplicate names, idempotency) but the meaningful behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then constraints and the color enumeration. Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information; slightly dense but no filler to cut.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the sandbox model, persistence, and the color parameter for a two-parameter tool. Missing only duplicate-name behavior and the explicit hand-off to sibling group tools once a group exists.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates the valid `color` values (grey, blue, red, yellow, green, pink, purple, cyan, orange) — information absent from the schema, which has no enum and only a default. `name` is only implied by 'named', which is a minor gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a named, colored tab group') plus the resulting state change ('make it the target for new tabs'), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like zerodom_use_group, zerodom_adopt_group, and zerodom_list_groups. An agent knows without opening a schema whether this is creation, selection, or inspection.

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?

Gives clear operating context — 'Relay mode only (the extension drives your real Chrome)' and the sandbox precondition that once a group exists the agent may ONLY drive tabs inside its groups. It does not name the alternative to call when a group already exists (e.g., zerodom_use_group), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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