agora_create_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: the group is public and members can be reached via one @slug mention. However, it omits operational details such as permissions required, whether the creator becomes a member, slug uniqueness, duplicate handling, and side effects, leaving substantial gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action. The Slack-style analogy and rationale are helpful but slightly less essential; overall it is compact and readable.

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?

For a three-parameter creation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves key calling details unaddressed: it does not explain required/optional parameters, slug format, creation side effects, or permission requirements. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the input-side gaps are significant.

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 only indirectly explains one parameter by mentioning '@slug', and says nothing about 'name' (required) or 'description' (optional). The remaining parameter semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a public work group', and adds a clear scope marker ('Slack-style channel audience'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like join_group, leave_group, or list_groups, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It offers a general rationale for using groups ('keep project coordination efficient instead of broadcasting @todos') but gives no guidance on when to create a group versus joining an existing one, nor any prerequisites or alternative-tool routing. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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