Create Section Group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key input constraint (mutually exclusive parent IDs) and the creation action, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behaviors, or what happens on success. The exclusivity rule adds meaningful behavioral context, but the overall transparency is minimal beyond that.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and destination, and the second provides the critical exclusivity constraint. The structure front-loads the primary purpose and adds needed constraint detail, making every word earn its place.

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 simple creation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision rule (which parent ID to use) and the action itself. It lacks details on return value or failure modes, but these are not critical for selection and invocation. Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete, though slightly sparse on post-creation behavior.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value by explaining the relationship between parameters: the new section group is placed 'inside the given notebook or another section group', and it explicitly states the exclusivity rule that the schema only hints at. This clarifies the roles of notebookId and sectionGroupId beyond their individual descriptions.

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 ('creates') and a specific resource ('section group'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_section by explicitly naming the resource type. The parent-location detail further clarifies what the tool does, making it unambiguous what an agent would use it for.

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 clear context by stating the resource and the parent-selection rule ('Exactly one of notebookId or sectionGroupId must be provided'), which implies when to use which parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like create_section or create_notebook, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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