Create a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention that this is a non-idempotent write, no required-permission or naming/uniqueness constraints, and no note on what happens if a duplicate name is submitted.

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 fragments, no waste, verb front-loaded – but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The parenthetical endpoint is the only non-redundant element and it is not the most useful thing that could occupy that space.

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?

A 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and an unexplained enum needs more than this. An agent cannot learn from the description whether name must be unique, whether member_ids can be empty, or how the three group types differ – gaps the generic schema text does not fill either.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter content in the description. However the schema descriptions are pure boilerplate ('Body field name (required).'), and the description does nothing to explain the meaningful parts – particularly what ring_all/monitoring/hunt actually mean for group behavior or what member_ids controls.

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 verb+resource ('Create a group') does identify the operation and separates it from get/update/delete/list_group siblings, but it is a verbatim restatement of the title with zero added specificity. It never says what a group is in this API or what creating one entails, so the agent learns nothing it didn't already get from the 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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, no reference to alternatives such as placetel_create_call_center_queue or the other group tools. The only extra token is the raw endpoint, which gives no selection guidance.

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