create_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a group is created, but fails to mention side effects (like adding an object to the study), prerequisites (valid shape_ref and subshape_type), or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and method, exemplifying appropriate 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 4 parameters, an output schema, and multiple closely related sibling tools, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It doesn't explain the meaning of shape_ref and subshape_type, nor does it clarify the difference between this and create_surface_group/create_volume_group, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only clarifies subshape_ids ('from subshape IDs') while leaving shape_ref, subshape_type, and name unexplained. The property names and types in the schema are not enough to understand how to populate these fields correctly.

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'), the resource ('GEOM group'), and the method ('from subshape IDs'), making it specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from closely related sibling tools like create_groups, create_surface_group, or create_volume_group, preventing a perfect 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without explaining the context in which this tool is the right choice over its siblings.

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