yougile_create_group_chat

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. The example structures are parameter-oriented, not behavioral.

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?

Two sentences plus an example. The example earns its place given the complex nested object parameters. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

The description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers all inputs needed to invoke the tool. While there's no output schema and no mention of return values, the tool is a straightforward create operation and the provided example adequately clarifies the expected input structure.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how to structure the nested maps, which is helpful, but it doesn't provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Create a group chat' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_group_chat, list_group_chats, and update_group_chat. The purpose is immediately 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond listing required parameters. It only says 'Requires users map, userRoleMap, and roleConfigMap', which is more about parameter completeness than usage context.

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