create_group

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds critical behavioral detail beyond this: every call creates a new group even with an identical name, which explains the non-idempotency; it also discloses that sensitive/restricted groups are hidden from ordinary reads along with their memberships, and that organization_id does not create an affiliation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs: a one-line purpose, a non-idempotency warning and usage pointer, then parameter caveats. Every sentence carries meaningful information; no filler. Slightly verbose in the sensitivity explanation, but the structure front-loads the purpose and keeps important usage guidance near the top.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers core semantics, non-idempotency, use-before-create guidance, parameter specifics, and visibility behavior. It does not mention error conditions, required permissions, or what happens if the organization_id does not exist, but these are not essential for basic invocation and the annotations plus schema cover the rest.

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 explains `organization_id` (must name an existing organization, only places the group under it) and `sensitivity` (defaults to `personal`, with visibility implications). `name` and `kind` are not explicitly described, but their meaning is clear from the opening sentence and enumerated kinds. The description partially fills the gap but leaves those two parameters to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create one identified group' and enumerates the kinds of groups (class, cohort, team, department, club, household, community). It differentiates itself from siblings by clarifying that 'an equal name is never treated as the same group' and directing users to `find_groups` when reuse of an existing group is intended. An agent can clearly distinguish this from lookup or membership tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use `find_groups` first and reuse the returned `id` when the user confirms it is the same one.' It also clarifies the behavior of `organization_id` (only places the group under an organization, creates no affiliation) and that a `sensitive` or `restricted` group is withheld from ordinary reads. This tells the agent when to create vs. reuse and what side effects to expect.

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