add_query_group

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 clearly states that this tool creates a display folder, with examples including nested paths like 'Data\\Raw', which implies path support. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, error behavior if the folder already exists, or any side effects beyond creation. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple create operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes practical examples and a cross-reference to the follow-up tool. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the resource, gives examples, and indicates the next step in the workflow. The only missing elements are potential edge-case behaviors like duplicate folder handling or permissions, but these are not critical for a tool with this simplicity.

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 adds context for the 'folder' parameter by explaining it as a display folder and providing examples of folder names and paths, reinforcing the schema's description. However, it does not explain 'sessionId' at all, which is also absent from the schema's description (50% coverage). Since sessionId is likely a generic session identifier used across tools, the lack of explanation is a minor gap, but the description could have compensated more fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('query group') and defines it as a display folder for queries in the Power Query Queries pane. It provides concrete examples ('Staging' or 'Parameters') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the related sibling tool set_object_query_group, which is for assigning objects rather than creating the 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?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need to create a display folder for organizing queries, and then assign queries to it with set_object_query_group. It clearly mentions the companion tool and gives a workflow, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exceptions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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