新增群组

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it partially fulfills it by exposing the HTTP method POST and the unified response format, including the success code and 'data' as the new group ID. It also surfaces key defaults such as topicType=0 and appId=pushplus公众号. However, it does not mention side effects beyond creation, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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 dense paragraph but wastes no words: it enumerates all 10 parameters with required/optional markers and closes with the response format. It could be improved with line breaks for readability, but the length is appropriate for the parameter count.

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?

For a 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers required and optional fields, defaults, and the response data type, which is enough for an agent to construct a request and interpret the result. It omits error cases and auth prerequisites, but those are not critical for the primary call sequence.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description essentially restates the same meanings, required/optional flags, and defaults, adding no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no real parameter insight.

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 states the endpoint and operation in the first phrase, 'POST /open/topic/add - 新增群组', making the verb-resource pair explicit. This clearly identifies a creation action, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools such as open_topic_edit and open_topic_delete, though those alternatives are not named.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives; it only states '新增群组' and lists parameters. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as authentication or required prior steps, and no exclusions that would route an agent to open_topic_edit or open_topic_delete. Usage is only implicit from the name and opening phrase.

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