create_gateway_group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the purpose but no further behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or application behavior. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the rich schema (5 params, all described), annotations, and the straightforward create operation, the description is adequate for understanding the tool's role. It could mention side effects like whether changes are applied automatically, but the apply_immediately parameter implies that behavior, so the context is largely 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all 5 parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a gateway group') and specifies the resource and purpose ('for multi-WAN failover or load balancing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_gateway_groups, update_gateway_group, and delete_gateway_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 provides context for when to use the tool ('multi-WAN failover or load balancing'), which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling slightly short of a 5.

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