define_repo_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can create, replace, or delete, and mentions persistence to ~/.doc-index/_groups.jsonc with hand-editability. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover authorization or detailed side effects.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes key version and persistence details efficiently.

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?

The description covers operation types, version, persistence, and delete behavior. However, it lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, and prerequisites. Given no output schema, it could be more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It clarifies that an empty repos list deletes the group, but does not describe the 'name' parameter. This partially covers the meaning of the repos parameter but leaves name undefined.

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 clearly states the tool creates, replaces, or deletes a repo group, specifying the resource and actions. It also mentions version requirement, distinguishing it from listing tools like list_repo_groups.

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 implies usage for creating, replacing, or deleting groups but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like list_repo_groups. It does provide a useful behavioral hint about empty repos list deleting the group, but lacks formal when-to-use guidance.

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