ibmcloud_iam_access_group_policy_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not mention required permissions, whether the policy is appended or replaces existing policies, whether the access group must already exist, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is appropriately minimal for a simple action.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how the parameters work together, what the expected result is, or any constraints (e.g., whether the access group must exist). The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly beyond the schema.

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 100%, with each of the 6 parameters having a one-line description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema descriptions are basic but adequate for understanding the parameters.

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 'Create a policy for an access group' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('policy for an access group'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ibmcloud_iam_access_group_policies (which likely lists policies). It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 such as ibmcloud_iam_access_group_policies (list policies) or ibmcloud_iam_access_group_create (create the group itself). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints beyond the bare statement of the action.

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