Create group deploy token

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little beyond that (response wrapper containing a DeployToken model, ParameterError/MissingParameterError behavior), but omits the operationally important fact that the token value is exposed once and that re-invoking creates a duplicate token.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring boilerplate is low-value, and the '**kwargs: Additional parameters ... (e.g., ...)' line misrepresents an explicit 11-property schema.

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?

A mutation tool with 11 undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more: required fields, meaning of expires_at, what project_id/username do in a group-scoped call, and the one-time visibility of the token secret are all absent. As written an agent can invoke it but is likely to guess required inputs incorrectly.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it only gestures at group_id, name and scopes inside a generic '**kwargs' line. Pagination-ish parameters (page, per_page, max_pages), expires_at, token, username and api_parameters are unexplained, and although the schema marks nothing required, the description gives no hint which fields GitLab actually demands.

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 first line states a concrete verb and resource ('Create a deploy token for a group'), which is enough to separate it from gitlab_create_project_deploy_token and the get/delete deploy-token siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the project-scoped deploy token tool, no mention of required GitLab permissions (owner/maintainer), and no note that the generated token secret is only retrievable at creation time. The only hints are generic Raise clauses.

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