Create Group

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the visibility semantics for Public, Private, and Teams sharing, and notes that Teams requires team_ids. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, return value, or error handling, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose. The sharing options are formatted as a clear, scannable list, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key domain-specific concept of sharing visibility and the dependency on team_ids, covering the main decision points. It could mention what the created group object looks like, but for a simple create operation this is not essential. The description is largely self-sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by elaborating the sharing enum values and clarifying that Teams requires team_ids, which is helpful. For name and color, the description does not add beyond the schema's own 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 begins with 'Create a new group in Less Annoying CRM,' clearly stating the specific verb, resource, and system. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_group, delete_group, and get_group, and adds context about groups being used to segment contacts. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.

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 explains that groups are used to segment contacts for easy retrieval, implying when creation is appropriate. It also details the sharing options and their visibility, which helps the agent choose the right configuration. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like edit_group or add_contact_to_group.

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