Create Contact_group

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds that it 'adds a new row' and warns about dry-run, but does not disclose potential side effects like parent relationship constraints or custom field behavior.

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: purpose, caution about dry-run, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information.

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 tool has 7 parameters and nested objects (custom_fields), the description lacks guidance on optional but important fields like 'parent', 'tags', and 'custom_fields'. The return format info is helpful, but overall completeness is average.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the 'parent' field is nestable.

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 'Create a new contact_group in NetBox' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling create tools like netbox_create_contact or netbox_create_contact_role, which also create other objects in the contact domain.

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 advises asking for a dry-run before calling, which provides a cautionary usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., netbox_update_contact_group) or any prerequisites like existing parent object.

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