create_group

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

Annotations confirm a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds valuable traits beyond them: the admin-permission requirement, the immutability of group_id, and the display_name default. It does not discuss idempotency behavior or error modes, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then permissions, then workflow, then structured Args. Dense with no filler sentences, and each line earns its place.

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?

An output schema already exists, so the brief 'Returns: Confirmation message' is sufficient. Combined with permissions, parameter semantics, and the follow-up path, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carry the load, and it does: group_id is explained as the persistent reference key that cannot change, and display_name as the UI name defaulting to the ID. Both parameters receive semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new group') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_groups, delete_group, and list_group_members without ambiguity. The follow-up note pointing to update_user adds scope context.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires admin rights (or delegated user administration)') and a concrete follow-up workflow (add users via update_user's groups field). It does not explicitly contrast against alternative creation paths, but the when-to-use context is solid.

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