conn_group_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the creation action and a follow-up step, but does not explain side effects, permissions, uniqueness requirements, or what happens on failure. This is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks depth.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences that immediately state the action and the next logical step. There is no repetition or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and workflow (create then add scopes). It does not address potential edge cases like duplicate group names or idempotency, but for this level of complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides full parameter documentation (100% coverage) for the single 'name' parameter with examples ('cocaxcode', 'optimizatusol'). The description does not contribute additional parameter details, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's primary function: 'Crea un nuevo grupo de conexiones' (Creates a new connection group). The verb 'crea' and resource 'grupo de conexiones' are specific, and the follow-up mention of 'conn_group_add_scope' distinguishes it from sibling group-related tools by indicating a workflow step.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by instructing the user to 'Luego añade scopes (directorios) con conn_group_add_scope' (Then add scopes with conn_group_add_scope). This clarifies a typical sequence of operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like conn_create or conn_group_delete.

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