asc_create_subscription_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '(LIVE write)' usefully warns that this affects live data, but nothing is said about required permissions, idempotency, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the group already exists — meaningful gaps for a live mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the mutation warning in parentheses. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.

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 described. However, for a live write with no annotations and three completely undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin — no prerequisites, no side-effect detail, no disambiguation from the many subscription-related siblings.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. 'For the app' only weakly implies app_id; reference_name and the optional approval_id (which likely relates to an approval-gated live write) are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a subscription group') with a scope ('for the app'), and 'group' distinguishes it from the sibling asc_create_subscription and from the localization tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with asc_add_subscription_group_localization or asc_localize_group, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 '(LIVE write)' tag signals this is a real mutation rather than a dry run, but there is no guidance on when to call it, what prerequisites (e.g. an existing app record) are needed, or which sibling to use instead. An agent gets no routing information beyond the resource name.

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