create_surface_group

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

There are no annotations, and the description itself fails to disclose any behavioral details. It does not mention side effects, requirements, error behavior, or what the wrapper actually does differently from a standard group creation.

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 brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague sentence does not earn its place as it omits critical details.

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 tool has meaningful complexity (grouping faces via shape references and subshape IDs) and no annotations. The description lacks essential context for correct selection and invocation, making it nearly unusable for an agent.

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 provides no explanation of shape_ref, subshape_ids, or name parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 'Create FACE group convenience wrapper,' which clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource type (FACE group), but the term 'convenience wrapper' is vague and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like create_group, create_groups, or create_volume_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_group or create_volume_group. The description gives no context for selection criteria or prerequisites.

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