Create group

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it is a write operation, confirms non-idempotency, and mentions the return value (confirmation message with group name). No contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'Write operation.' It is clear and efficient, though the first two sentences could be merged for even more conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, idempotency, and post-action. It could mention error conditions or auth requirements, but overall it is adequate.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema: it says 'top-level' and 'verbatim', but the schema already explains the parameter well. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (top-level group), and the scope (realm). It distinguishes from sibling tools like keycloak_group_list and keycloak_group_delete by specifying 'top-level' and implying it's not for subgroups.

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 explicitly warns about non-idempotency and advises using keycloak_group_list afterward to get the group ID. It provides clear when-to-use context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if idempotency is needed).

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