group_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '创建分组' only indicates a creation action but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, whether there are rate limits, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with only two Chinese characters, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too terse to be useful - it doesn't provide enough information for an AI agent to understand when and how to use this tool. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description doesn't earn its place by being informative.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, no parameter guidance, and no differentiation from similar tools. For a creation operation that likely has side effects, this leaves the agent guessing about important implementation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (name, remark), the description provides zero information about parameter meaning, format, constraints, or usage. The schema shows 'name' is required and 'remark' is optional, but the description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid group name, what remarks are for, or any parameter relationships. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 '创建分组' (create group) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'group_create' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of group is being created, what system it belongs to, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'env_create' or 'proxy_create'. While the verb 'create' is clear, the resource 'group' is too vague without context.

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 description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple creation tools in the sibling list (env_create, proxy_create), but no indication of what distinguishes group creation from environment or proxy creation. No prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts are mentioned.

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