create_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no message is sent upon creation, the two chat types and their joining behaviors (invitees must accept for group, direct add for room), and notes 'One create per call' implying rate limiting. It does not specify error conditions or return value, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple creation tool but lacks information about the return value (e.g., created group ID) and error conditions. No output schema exists, so the description could have elaborated on what the caller gets back. However, given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for further actions, it is minimally viable.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the difference between group and room beyond the schema's 'LINE chat type', giving a default value, and providing an example source for mids (find_contact). This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states it creates a new LINE group/room with members, distinguishing between group and room via chatType. It explicitly says no message is sent, and the verb 'creates' combined with resource 'new LINE group/room' is specific. This differentiates it from sibling tools like invite_member (adds to existing group) or rename_group.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to create a new group/room) and gives an example of obtaining mids from find_contact. It explains the default chatType. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like invite_member for existing groups, though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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