create_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well by stating 'Mutating,' describing the return values for each kind, explaining seeding behavior, and noting uniqueness constraints. It does not cover auth requirements, error formats, or idempotency, but the core behavioral differentiation between tag and system is clearly disclosed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact bullet-like format for kind-specific details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description is highly complete: it defines the domain concept, explains both valid kinds, specifies constraints, describes return values, and references the appropriate sibling tool for post-creation member additions. The only minor gap is server_version semantics, but that is a schema-level detail and does not affect overall usability.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is already moderate, but the description adds significant semantic nuance beyond the schema: it explains that model_ids seeds tags, must be omitted for systems, and that passing members for system raises. It also clarifies that group names are unique per workspace within a kind, going beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 a group (tag or system), optionally seeding tag members.' It clearly defines what a group is and differentiates the two kinds, while the sibling list shows this is the only creation tool for groups, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use tag vs system creation and gives a hard exclusion rule: for kind='system', model_ids must be omitted or empty and passing members raises. It also names the follow-up tool, add_model_to_group(kind='system', ...), as the alternative for adding members to a system afterwards.

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