create_group

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false). It states the core action but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, group type nuances, or limitations. 'Regular group' and 'specified participants' are essentially part of the core function rather than additional behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so minimal that it lacks any structural breakdown or additional useful detail, though it earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 parameters) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. It does not explain what 'regular group' means relative to Telegram group types, nor does it mention any edge cases or prerequisites. It is adequate but not complete.

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%. The description only vaguely references 'participants' which likely maps to the 'users' parameter, but it does not explain the 'title' parameter or clarify that users can be integers or strings. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool creates a regular group with specified participants, using a specific verb ('Создать') and resource ('обычную группу'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_channel' by specifying 'regular group' rather than a channel, though it does not explicitly compare with other group-like tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_channel' or 'join_chat'. The description mentions no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action name.

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