create_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool creates groups and returns responses, omitting essential details such as idempotency, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects on existing groups.

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 concise at two sentences, but could be more informative. It front-loads the primary action but lacks additional context that would fit without verbosity.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain constraints like uniqueness, batch size limits, or what happens on duplicate names. The output schema is assumed to exist but not shown, yet the description's brevity leaves significant gaps.

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 description says 'list of group names' but the schema shows objects with a 'name' field, which is slightly imprecise. Since schema description coverage is 0% (though the nested 'name' field has a description), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates wallet groups. The verb 'create' and resource 'wallet groups' are unambiguous. The description distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'add_wallets_to_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The agent must infer from context alone.

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