pmg_what_group_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it's a mutation (write operation), dry-run by default, and that confirm=True executes. It mentions the API path and return value. It does not mention error conditions or side effects beyond creation, but for a creation tool this is acceptable.

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, reasonably concise paragraph. It front-loads the mutation label and dry-run info. It includes the API path, which may be marginally helpful. Some unneeded detail ('PMG 9.1 pmgsh-verified') could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers return value on confirm. Parameter explanations are complete. It mentions prerequisites but not error cases or duplicate behavior. For a creation tool, this is mostly 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 low (17%), but the description explains 5 of 6 parameters (name, info, and_, invert, confirm) with detailed semantics: and_ maps to API 'and' for AND/OR logic, invert explained, confirm as execution flag. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 with the verb 'create'. It specifies the resource ('what object group') and distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_what_group_delete, pmg_what_group_get, etc. The 'MUTATION (LOW)' prefix further clarifies the action type.

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 explains the dry-run default and confirm=True to execute, and mentions the required config. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update, or when to use pmg_what_object_add instead). The context is clear enough for an agent but lacks exclusions.

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