tocaro_create_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the bot and its creator automatically become owners and that the group code is returned in the 'code' field. However, it omits other behavioral details such as uniqueness constraints, naming rules, and potential side effects of creating duplicate groups.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, automatic ownership behavior, and required/return-value information. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action, automatic ownership, required parameter, and return behavior. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'purpose' parameter, but since it is optional and nullable, an agent can still invoke the tool correctly with just 'name'.

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 only repeats that 'name' is required, which the schema already enforces, and provides no semantic guidance for the 'purpose' parameter. The meaning of 'name' is inferable, but 'purpose' is left entirely unexplained.

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 opens with '新しいグループを作成する' ('Create a new group'), which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes creation from the sibling operations like listing groups, inviting to groups, and creating tasks.

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 intended use is clear: this tool creates a group. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the creation verb is distinct enough among the sibling tools that no exclusion is necessary.

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