create_address_group

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real constraint (members must be existing address object names) and that a creation status is returned, but it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, permissions, or whether creation is atomic when a member name is invalid.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list and a one-line return note. The parameter list partly restates the schema, but it is short and carries the added format and minimum-count details, so it earns its space.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs and gestures at the return value, but omits failure modes and the vdom/device context needed when creating objects on a multi-VDOM FortiGate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it specifies the allowed character set for name (letters, digits, underscore, hyphen) and states that members requires at least one entry, which the schema's array type alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the source of the data: 'Create a new address group from existing address object names.' An agent can tell this apart from list_address_groups or update_address_object, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling group-modification tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'; the description never says to use this instead of add_address_group_members when the group already exists, nor does it state prerequisites such as the device being registered or the member objects already existing on that device.

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