Create a new group on the farm to organize animal records. Provide a name, optional farm ID, and description.
Create a new group on the farm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The group name. | |
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| description | No | Optional description of the group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description ('Create a new group') is consistent with a non-read, non-destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already signal, such as idempotency or side effects.
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 wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose while leaving parameter details to the 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?
For a simple 3-parameter create operation with a fully documented schema and consistent annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not describe the return value or expected response format, but given the low complexity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.
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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'on the farm', which aligns with the farm_id property. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('a new group') with a farm scope. It is clear and differentiates from sibling tools like list_groups, update_group, and delete_group, though it adds little beyond the tool's name.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_group, nor does it clarify prerequisites or conditions like whether a default farm must be set. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.