create_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create a new group' without mentioning side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, or data persistence. This is severely insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence, 9 words). While conciseness is good, it sacrifices necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites, and what constitutes a successful creation. Highly incomplete.

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 75%, with three parameters having descriptions. The tool's description merely repeats 'subject' and 'participants' without adding any new meaning or clarifying the role of instanceName or the optional description parameter. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 that the tool creates a new group with a subject and participants, which are core aspects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_group_subject or fetch_all_groups. However, it omits mention of the required instanceName parameter, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating an existing group, fetching groups). No usage context is given, making it hard for an agent to decide between create and other group-related tools.

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