pmg_what_group_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation, defaults to dry-run, and requires confirm=True to execute. It explains the return format for execution ({"status":"ok","result":<ID>}). Some edge cases (e.g., duplicate name) are not mentioned.

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 and key information front-loaded (mutation level, dry-run). It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for different states), but it is efficient and clear.

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 that an output schema exists (not fully shown), the description explains the return for confirm=True and mentions the config requirement. It covers the basic workflow. It does not address potential conflicts like existing group names, but overall it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run/confirm mechanism and that the group starts empty, which goes beyond the parameter descriptions. It also ties into the workflow of adding objects later.

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 it creates a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group, specifies it's a mutation (low), mentions dry-run by default, and indicates it creates an empty group. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_what_group_delete and pmg_what_group_get.

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 usage instructions: dry-run by default, use confirm=True to execute, and suggests using pmg_what_object_add to populate the group. It also notes the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to similar tools like pmg_when_group_create.

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