baker_add_group

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds that the created group is empty but contains Low and High nodes, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects, failure cases, or whether an existing bake project is required.

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 definition is a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase contributes information, with no repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the basic safety profile. However, for a tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves an agent unable to reliably populate the required name and optional baker fields.

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 explain the two parameters, but it says nothing about the required 'name' or the optional 'baker' parameter. The ambiguous anyOf type for 'baker' (integer, string, or null) is left completely unexplained, and 'to a bake project' does not clarify which parameter identifies the project.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an empty bake group.' It also clarifies that the group comes with Low and High nodes and belongs to a bake project, which distinguishes it from generic object creation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as baker_create, but the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus baker_create or other baker tools. The phrase 'to a bake project' implies context, but it does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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