Create a contact group

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important getcha: the group must follow the address book's exsting convention or it becomes invisible to the user. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not carry. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical convention caveat is delivered in the second sentence without extrta words.

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 the tool's purpose and the essential behavioral constraint, and an output schema exists so return values need not be describeed. It lacks alternative routing and some edge-case behavior, but it is otherwise adequate for calling this tool correctly.

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?

With four parameters and only 75% schema coverage, the description adds little parameter meaning. The phrase 'named contacts' is vague and could misleader an agent into think contacts are names rather than IDs. It does not clarify address_book or note semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Creates a group card') and a clear resource, and sets it apart from sibling tools like create_contact and update_group. The title reinforces the resource, making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offerered. It does not mention when to choose create_group over update_group or create_contact, and it does not state any prerequisites or exclusions. The convention note is behavioral, not usage routing.

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