kaiten_create_company_group

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states the basic mutation. It does not disclose authorization requirements, uniqueness constraints, idempotency, side effects, or what the response will contain.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. The only slight redundancy is 'in Kaiten', since the tool name already contains the product, but it is not distracting.

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 tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without information about expected return value, required permissions, or behavioral constraints. It is sufficient to know what the tool creates but not to fully anticipate the outcome of invoking it.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter name with a 'Group name' description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantics about name format, uniqueness, or constraints.

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?

States exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: "Create a new company group." Together with the tool name, this unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools for other resources and from get/update/delete variants of company 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus kaiten_update_company_group, kaiten_delete_company_group, or kaiten_get_company_group. There are also no prerequisites, such as required permissions or whether the group must be unique.

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