create_certified_group

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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds crucial behavior the annotations cannot convey: creation is irreversible because 玄上 exposes no delete API, duplicate names are rejected, and a remote side is created in tandem. This is exactly the extra context the annotations fail to carry.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and workflow first, then the irreversible-deletion warning, then the collision rule. Nothing is redundant and the most consequential constraint (cannot be undone) is surfaced early.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a non-idempotent, open-world creation tool the description covers the hazards an agent must know: irreversibility, external-side effects, and duplicate rejection. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents name, project, and description in detail. The description adds only a soft note that the name should be confirmed with the user, not new syntactic or semantic detail — 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?

States a specific verb (新建/create) and resource (认证分组/certified group) scoped to a project, and adds a distinguishing detail — the group is mirrored on the external 玄上 side. An agent can tell this apart from list_certified_groups and the upload_* siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for use: the created group is what you select later when uploading certified assets, and the name should be confirmed with the user first. It does not explicitly name or exclude a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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