sn_create_group

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool creates a group and optionally assigns members/roles/manager, and returns the sys_id along with assignment results. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., manager user must exist), failure modes, or side effects (e.g., notifications triggered). This is adequate but not thorough.

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: a single sentence explaining the core action, followed by a brief bullet list of use cases, then a clear note on return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the return format and primary actions. However, it omits error scenarios and permission requirements, which would be helpful for a comprehensive understanding.

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 80% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds a useful hint for the 'name' field ('should be clear and unique'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema, especially for a 10-parameter tool.

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 'Create a ServiceNow group' and lists optional assignments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sn_create (generic record creation) and sn_manage_group_members (member-only management). The verb 'Create' is specific and the resource 'ServiceNow group' is well-defined.

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 use cases for groups (assignment, approval, notifications, ACLs), providing context for when to create groups. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sn_update (for modifying existing groups) or sn_manage_group_members (for post-creation member changes), leaving room for ambiguity.

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