cloud_placegrps_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a placement group (write operation) and explains ID resolution steps, but does not disclose permissions, error conditions, or side effects like duplicate group handling.

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 moderately concise: a purpose sentence, a structured Args list, and a Note. The Note could be more streamlined, but overall it's well-organized and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter resolutions but lacks details about the return value (no output schema). It does not mention pagination, error handling, or the response format, leaving some gaps for a creation tool.

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 compensates by listing and describing all parameters. It adds meaning to name and policy beyond the schema, but extra_* fields get generic explanations. The Note adds crucial context for project_id and region_id.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('placement group') with specific policy types (affinity, anti-affinity, soft-anti-affinity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_placegrps_del (delete) and cloud_placegrps_ls (list).

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 explicit guidance on resolving project_id and region_id when names are given, including which sibling tools to use for resolution. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives for the tool itself, but the context is clear.

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