Create property groups

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: single undo step, existing-name handling via alreadyExisted, and the full return shape. However, it declares the operation '(idempotent)' while the annotation sets idempotentHint: false, a direct conflict on the repeat-call semantics that an agent would rely on for retry logic.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource before behavior and return value. Almost every clause earns its place; the return-type sentence is slightly terse but useful given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the idempotent-return flag, and the sibling interaction – exactly the gaps structured fields leave. Remaining gaps are permissions/error semantics beyond the union type, which are minor for an annotated, non-destructive mutation.

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 only 50% (name documented, the nested description field and undoName's role only partially). The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all – it never explains the 500-item cap, the per-group description field, or how undoName interacts with the stated 'one undo step' behavior. With low coverage it should compensate and does not.

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 ('Creates user-defined property groups') and disambiguates the resource with a parenthetical ('the folders of the Property Manager'). It also names the sibling it overlaps with (create_property_definitions), so an agent can separate the two without reading either schema.

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?

It gives a concrete routing rule: create_property_definitions already creates missing groups itself, implying this tool is for standalone group creation. It never states exclusions negatively (e.g. when to prefer the definitions tool), but the overlap note is real guidance rather than none.

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