create_device_group

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load; it does well to disclose that this writes only to the dvmdb and doesn't touch live devices, plus the default os_type='unknown'. It omits risks an agent needs: behavior when the group name already exists, whether an ADOM lock is required (lock_adom is a sibling), and 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and safety scope, then systematically covers args, returns, and an example. The long os_type enumeration is bulky but earns its place because the schema declares no enum; the Returns block is mildly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it supplies purpose, scope, all parameter semantics, return shape, and a worked example. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (duplicate name handling, ADOM lock expectations) which an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, yet the description defines all four parameters, including the meaning of adom and name as the group master key, the default for os_type, and the full 33-value os_type enumeration that is absent from the schema. That is meaningful compensation well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a device group in FortiManager's device manager database') and immediately scopes it as a dvmdb metadata object that does not touch live devices. That scope statement separates it from siblings like add_device_to_group or execute_script_on_device_group without the agent opening a schema.

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?

It gives context for why groups exist ('bulk operations like policy installation') and clarifies the operation is metadata-only, which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names the complementary siblings (add_device_to_group, add_group_to_group, add_devices_to_group_bulk) or states prerequisites, so the agent must infer the boundary between creating a group and populating one.

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