create_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create', which implies mutation, but does not mention potential side effects such as the 'replace_existing' parameter overwriting existing groups, or any requirements like shape_ref validity. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation 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 extremely concise with exactly two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing supported group item fields. Every sentence adds value, there is no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. This is an example of zero-waste structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It omits key parameters like 'replace_existing' and does not explain the role of 'shape_ref'. While the group item fields are mentioned, the overall context is sparse, leaving the agent uncertain about how to properly invoke the tool beyond the most basic use.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by listing the supported keys for each group item (name, subshape_type, subshape_ids), but it does not explain 'shape_ref' or 'replace_existing', which are present in the schema. This partial compensation warrants a score above zero but below full coverage.

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 tool creates multiple GEOM groups in a single call, using the specific verb 'create' and the resource 'GEOM groups'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_group' by highlighting the batch nature, satisfying the requirement for a specific verb+resource that distinguishes from siblings.

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 phrase 'in one call' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when creating multiple groups is desired, as opposed to calling the singular 'create_group' multiple times. It implies efficiency but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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