create_contact_field_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. It discloses only the creation intent and parameter purposes, but omits side effects, permission requirements, or behavior like insertion ordering. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful 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 brief and well-structured with a clear one-line purpose and a compact Args list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundant text.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the core action. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. Minor omissions like prerequisites or behavior on invalid tab_id prevent a perfect score.

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 description explains each parameter beyond the schema, adding constraints (name 1-50 chars), roles (tab_id, logo_id, insert_after), and optionality. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates for the missing schema 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 "Create a new contact fields group" uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_contact_field and create_contact_field_tab. It unambiguously states the action and object.

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 a clear context of creating a group but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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