create_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that members can be provided at creation time and that the new group can be attached to a community immediately, but it does not warn that repeated invocation creates duplicates (non-idempotent) or describe permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. The second clause is slightly appended rather than structured, but nothing is wasted.

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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers both creation modes and the attachment capability; only auth/permission context and duplicate-creation behavior are missing, which is acceptable given the structured data provided.

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 coverage is 60%, so the schema already documents community, participants and parent_community. The description mainly restates that duality, adding little syntax or format detail; the undocumented parameters (name, account) and the JID/number/name format for participants are left to the schema or unstated entirely. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Crée") and resource ("un groupe"/"une communauté"), and even notes the composition (with members) and the parent-community attachment option. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_group, join_group or link_to_community, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics and by the two modes (group vs community), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_group, join_group, or link_to_community, and no stated prerequisites (permissions, session state).

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