aras_create_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions that roles are needed for lifecycle transitions, which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether creating an identity has permission implications), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the parent group does not exist. There is no mention of required authentication or potential errors. The description is minimally transparent.

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 two sentences, fairly concise and not bloated. The key purpose is front-loaded, followed by a note on lifecycle roles. The information about lifecycle transitions is relevant but slightly tangential, yet it doesn't harm conciseness. It could be trimmed, but it's near optimal.

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?

This is a creation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides only basic creation semantics and a note on lifecycle roles. It lacks critical information for correct invocation: prerequisites (e.g., does the parent group need to exist?), naming rules, expected behavior on duplicate names, or permissions required. Given the complexity of identity creation in a system like Aras, the description is incomplete.

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 only 33%, meaning 'gruppoPadre' has a description but 'nome' and 'descrizione' do not. The description adds some context for 'gruppoPadre' (nesting) and explains the 'nome' is the identity name, but it does not elaborate on 'descrizione' or provide format constraints for 'nome'. Given the low coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate; an agent might not know if 'nome' has specific naming rules.

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 verb ('Crea') and the resource ('gruppo o ruolo (Identity)'), and mentions optional nesting in a parent group. It differentiates from similar tools like aras_create_user and aras_create_item by specifying it creates identities, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The purpose is clear and distinguishable.

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 some context about roles being used for lifecycle transitions, which hints at when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like aras_create_user or aras_create_item, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios (e.g., 'use aras_create_user for user accounts'). The context is implied rather than explicit.

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