Create Permission Set Group

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the resulting object's semantics (users receive all permissions from all included permission sets), but it does not clarify behavior on duplicate creation, error handling, or required permissions. It adds some value but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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 a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact parameter listing. It is slightly redundant with the schema but overall efficient and easy to scan. The structure is clear and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 simple create tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and gives parameter semantics. It lacks details about response format or edge-case behavior, but these are not critical for tool selection and invocation. The annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates fullName, label, and permissionSets with brief explanations, but these add little beyond the schema. It does not clarify the optional `description` parameter or any format nuances, so no additional semantic value is provided.

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 the verb and resource: 'Creates a Permission Set Group that aggregates multiple Permission Sets into a single assignable unit.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_permission_set (which creates a single permission set) and sf_create_muting_permission_set, and explains the core value proposition.

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 provides explicit context: 'Simplifies administration when users need a combination of permissions.' This informs when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. The guidance is clear and direct.

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