create_client_group

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

It discloses the mutating nature, persistence behavior, local-only scope, no-op behavior without confirm=true, and the success=false return caveat. This goes well beyond the single destructiveHint annotation and gives the agent accurate expectations for side effects.

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 well structured with a clear opening, a behavioral note, and an args list. There is minor redundancy around confirm=true being required and the no-op return behavior, but overall every section contributes useful information.

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 mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, this description is thorough: it covers side effects, confirmation semantics, scope, return behavior, and routes to sibling tools. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the outcome.

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 100%, and the description largely mirrors the schema's parameter documentation. It adds some context (e.g., 'local_only' and no-op behavior), but does not substantially expand on what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Create a controller-independent local client group.' It further clarifies what the operation does not do ('does not create anything on the UniFi controller'), which differentiates it from siblings like assign_client_group, list_client_groups, and delete_client_group.

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 clearly explains the confirmation requirement and points to relevant alternatives: 'Use assign_client_group to add members, or list_client_groups to see existing groups.' It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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