Base Account Create Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on duplicate names/paths. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence in Vietnamese, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It earns its place but is too brief to cover necessary behavioral or parameter context.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required fields, the meaning of 'path' vs 'parent_path', or any return value expectations. The output schema exists but the description still fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters. It only mentions the resource type (Unit/Group) and gives no meaning for 'name', 'path', 'members', 'managers', 'description', 'parent_path', or 'access_token'. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Tạo mới' = create) and resource ('phòng ban / nhóm làm việc (Unit/Group)') on Base Account, which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like base_account_edit_group or base_wework_create_department, but the resource and platform are clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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 such as base_account_edit_group or base_wework_create_department. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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