Create Group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering basic write and safety semantics. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—no side effects, return value, or prerequisites—so it provides minimal value beyond 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It concisely communicates the core function without wasting 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?

With 3 parameters fully described in the schema and annotations present, the description is adequate for a simple create operation. However, no output schema exists and the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., group ID), leaving some uncertainty about the tool's complete behavior.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (subject, description, participants), so the description adds no new meaning. It merely says 'with specified participants,' which is already explicit in the schema. Baseline 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 tool creates a new WhatsApp group with specified participants, using the specific verb 'create' and resource 'WhatsApp group.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_group_subject or find_group, which have different purposes.

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 usage for when a new group is needed: 'Create a new WhatsApp group' provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the presence of sibling update tools makes the intended use reasonably evident, though not explicitly stated.

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