create_modifier_group

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing duplicate guard (case-insensitive name check), dry-run preview via dry_run, confirmation via MCP elicitation or confirm=True, and the required INVENTORY_W permission. These are non-obvious behavioral details that inform agent decisions.

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?

Four tight sentences: one intro/purpose, one example, two covering guards and permissions. No fluff, all information is operationally valuable and easy to scan.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the key operational aspects: preconditions (permission), safety (dry-run, confirmation), and failure mode (duplicate guard). This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explicitly explains dry_run and confirm behavior, and uses 'Milk options' as an example for name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though name's format isn't fully detailed.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a new modifier group' with an example ('Milk options'). Distinguishes from sibling create_modifier by explicitly using 'group', making the resource type 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?

Provides clear context: creating a modifier group, not a modifier. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_modifier. The example and naming imply the boundary, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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