asset_groups

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 lists mutating operations (create, update, delete) and parameter requirements, but it does not describe side effects, permission needs, reversibility, or response formats. For a mutation-heavy tool, omitting such details leaves the agent without knowledge of consequences or preconditions.

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 lengthy but well-structured: a one-line summary, a categorized list of 24 operations, and an arg listing. It front-loads the purpose and uses a consistent, scannable format. While every line is informative, the sheer volume and repetition of parameter lists prevent a perfect score for 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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 24 operations, the description is remarkably thorough on operation semantics and parameter requirements. It falls short on describing return values, error behavior, or output formats, which would be necessary for an agent to interpret results. Given the complexity, the coverage is strong but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each of the 14 parameters is described with its purpose and the specific info_types it applies to (e.g., 'asset_group_tag_id: Tag ID (for tag_members)'). It also documents defaults for skip/limit and explains JSON request parameters (selectors_json, request_json), providing all necessary semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Manage Asset isolation groups and tages in BloodHound,' providing a clear verb+resource pair. It enumerates 24 distinct info_type sub-operations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like group_info or domain_info by focusing on the asset-groups feature. However, the verb 'Manage' is generic and could be more specific (e.g., 'List, create, update, and delete'), preventing a top score.

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 gives detailed guidance on required parameters for each info_type (e.g., 'get - get a specific asset group (requires: asset_group_id)'), which helps an agent select the correct operation. It does not, however, reference sibling tools or state when this tool should be used instead of another, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage context is implied by the resource (asset groups and tags) but not explicitly framed against alternatives.

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