add_audit_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It warns that changes take effect immediately on the live audit policy, and mentions idempotency. This is adequate for a non-destructive tool that adds a configuration.

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 with no wasted words. Key information (purpose, idempotency, prerequisite, caution) is front-loaded, followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence contributes value.

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 (3 required parameters), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral notes, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is handled externally.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter in the Args section: workspace, warehouse, group, and gives an example for group ('e.g. BATCH_COMPLETED_GROUP'), adding meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'Add a single audit action group without overwriting the others', specifying the verb 'add', the resource 'audit action group', and importantly distinguishes from siblings like 'set_audit_action_groups' which would overwrite all groups.

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 notes that auditing must already be enabled, providing a prerequisite. It also states idempotency, which guides usage when the group already exists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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