Create Sharing Group

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation with potential open-world effects. The description adds that the group is rooted at a resource and controls access, which clarifies intent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, failure modes, or 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 create operation with a complete parameter schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently captures the core action and purpose. It could be more detailed about the group's relationship to agents/superflows or default access levels, but these are covered in the schema; overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning ('rooted at a resource' hints at root_resource_id/type) but does not elaborate beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('a sharing group'), and adds specificity with 'rooted at a resource' and 'controlling who can access it.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_group, delete_group, and share_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 implies when to use the tool (to establish a new access-control group) and clarifies the group's root. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context is clear enough among the sharing siblings.

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