create_group

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (new group with auto-generated id) and the post-creation state (starts empty), which are important behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions, uniqueness constraints beyond the schema, or idempotency, but it covers the key traits an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences front-loaded with the action, requirement, and return value, with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place by adding a distinct fact.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required input, optional fields, return value, and the follow-up tool. It could mention tenant scoping or permissions, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the name and description fields, including that both are required. The description mentions display_name and optional description, which is slightly inconsistent with the schema (both are required), but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (group), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming add_group_users as the follow-up for membership. An agent can tell this apart from scim_create_group and create_user without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the requirement (display_name) and the next step (use add_group_users to add members), plus notes the group starts empty. It doesn't contrast with scim_create_group or explain when to prefer one over the other, but the primary usage context is clear.

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