add_user_group

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not describe side effects, permission requirements, behavior on duplicate names, or any other operational details. The description merely restates the action without elaborating.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It achieves maximum conciseness, though it does so by omitting necessary 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?

Even with an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. A create operation with five parameters and no explanation of key concepts like 'policy' or 'device' leaves the agent without complete context. The tool is too minimal for effective use in a complex environment with numerous sibling tools.

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, the description must explain parameters like 'policy' and 'device,' but it provides none. The schema only lists parameter names and types; the description adds zero semantic meaning, leaving the agent without essential information about valid policy values or how device/skin/comment are used.

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 'Adds a user group.' clearly states the verb (adds) and the resource (user group), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_group, update_user_group, and remove_user_group. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related operations such as requiring a policy or device. The description implies usage only through the verb 'adds,' but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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