Create a group

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context: requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This goes beyond annotation coverage and alerts the agent to side effects.

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 compact with two sentences. It front-loads the core action and endpoint, then provides a field list, reference link, and critical requirements. The field list is long but necessary given the generic schema. Structure is logical and efficient.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: endpoint, body fields, reference, permission requirements, side effects, and confirmation need. It does not detail each field's semantics, but the reference link fills that gap. Overall, an agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter, but the body schema is a generic recursive anyOf. The description compensates by listing the specific body fields (allowDuplicates, description, externalKey, etc.), providing meaning that the schema itself lacks. For query and confirm, the description largely restates schema info, but the field list adds genuine value.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a group') and specifies the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/groups). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify/delete/get groups by explicitly indicating creation. The list of body fields further clarifies scope.

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 creating a new group but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like xmatters_modify_a_group or mention when not to use it. It does provide some usage conditions (requires operator write opt-in, confirm:true, may notify recipients), but lacks explicit 'use this when' guidance versus siblings.

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