Create Public Group

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about what is created (Group SObject with Type=Regular) and member types, but does not disclose potential edge behaviors such as duplicate name handling, permission requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every clause contributes: creation, object type, use cases, member composition, and a pointer to the dependent sharing rule tool. No redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is created, why it is used, and what can be included. It lacks a mention of return value or failure modes, but given the simplicity and complete schema, this is a minor gap. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for groupName, label, and members including member types. The description reinforces the meaning of members by stating that groups can include users, roles, and other groups, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it 'Creates a Public Group (Group SObject with Type=Regular)' and lists specific use cases: 'for sharing rules, email distribution, or queue membership'. This specific verb-resource pair and technical detail (Type=Regular) distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_queue or sf_create_role.

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 clear when-to-use context by listing use cases and explicitly points to a related tool: 'Use as a sharing target in sf_create_sharing_rule.' However, it does not state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like sf_create_queue, so it misses explicit exclusions.

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