acf_create_field_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails. It says nothing about required capabilities, what happens on key collision or duplicate titles, whether the group becomes active immediately, or what the call returns (no output schema exists to compensate).

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?

It is a single front-loaded clause with zero filler, which is structurally sound, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

A creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested array payload deserves far more: guidance on the site parameter, the location-rule default (post_type == post), and the auto-generated key behavior. None of that is surfaced in the description.

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 63%, close to the moderate baseline, and the schema itself documents key/site/title/fields/location defaults. The description adds only the word 'fields', which signals that field definitions are supplied inline but adds no syntax, nesting, or default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create an ACF field group') and hints at the nested payload ('with fields'). However it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as acf_update_field_group, acf_import_field_groups, or acf_list_field_groups, so an agent must already know the ACF vocabulary to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like acf_import_field_groups (which also creates groups) or acf_update_field_group for existing ones. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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