pmg_who_group_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses that this is a mutation (LOW) with a dry-run pattern, needs specific configuration, and returns the numeric group ID on confirm. It is transparent about the execution model and dependencies, though it omits details on error cases or permission requirements.

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 moderately concise at ~100 words, with clear front-loading of purpose and mutation type. It lists key points in a structured order, though it could tighten some repetitive phrasing. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 number of parameters (6) and existence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return value. It explains the dry-run/confirm mechanism and configuration prerequisite. It does not discuss what happens if the group already exists or permission errors, but it is sufficient for correct usage in most scenarios.

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?

The input schema only describes proximo_target. The tool description compensates by explaining the semantics of name, info, and_, invert, and confirm, including that and_ maps to an API boolean for AND/OR logic and that confirm controls actual execution. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group, with a specific verb ('create'), resource ('who object group'), and scope ('PMG RuleDB'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_who_group_delete, pmg_who_group_get, etc. by specifying the creation action.

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 mentions a dry-run default and the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools (e.g., pmg_who_group_update) or state when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. An agent would need to infer from the tool name.

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