sf_manage_group

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is used for 'creating' and 'managing' groups/queues, implying mutations. However, it does not disclose required permissions, error states (e.g., duplicate group), side effects, or any destructive behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact of using this tool.

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, with clear front-loading of the main purpose. It uses bullet points for actions and use cases, making it scannable. No redundant information is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers core actions and use cases. However, it misses details on required fields per action (beyond 'action'), error handling, and behavior for different parameters (e.g., what happens if group_id is invalid). The high schema coverage partially compensates, but completeness is only adequate.

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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the action enum list and brief context, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions. It adds value by grouping actions but does not compensate for the uncovered 14%.

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 and manages Salesforce Public Groups and Queues, with a list of actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_manage_group_members and sn_manage_group_members via the 'sf_' prefix and explicit reference to Salesforce. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other Salesforce tools like sf_create.

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 lists actions and their purposes (create, create_queue, add_members, etc.) and provides use cases for groups/queues. However, it lacks guidance on when to use each action (e.g., when to use create vs create_queue) and does not mention prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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