add_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the create action. It does not disclose whether the change is persisted to the workbook or requires a save, what happens to source members not covered by the groups mapping, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably terse for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With no annotations, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and a nested 'groups' object, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values are covered, but callers still lack the semantics needed to build a correct groups mapping.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Source-field members' loosely maps to source_field and grouping maps to groups, but field_name, default_value, and internal_name — including the default 'Other' fallback behavior — are entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('create a categorical dimension') and the mechanism ('by grouping source-field members'), which is clearer than a restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings such as add_set, add_combined_set, or add_hierarchy, which all create derived objects from fields.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_set/add_combined_set, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the selection context entirely from the name.

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