plan_create_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a planning (non-executing) operation, which is useful, but it doesn't explain what planning entails (validation, dry-run, output format, or side effects). The use of 'panel's GroupCreate body' suggests a specific request format but adds little beyond the schema.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool involves nested objects and an output schema, yet the description explains nothing about the expected group structure, what the plan output contains, or any related workflow. The minimal description is likely insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the necessary parameters or interpret the result.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'group' is the GroupCreate body and 'panel' identifies the panel, but it doesn't explain the expected structure of the group object or how the panel parameter is used. The additionalProperties in the schema leave the group object completely open, and the description offers no guidance.

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 (planning to create a group), the specific resource (group using the panel's GroupCreate body), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_update_group or plan_create_node. The phrase 'using the panel's GroupCreate body' adds specificity. However, 'Plan creating' is slightly awkward and the exact scope of 'plan' could be clearer.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plan_create_node or apply_change. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a panel must exist or how to obtain the GroupCreate body. No use-case context is provided.

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