evolution_group_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new group,' without noting that this is a write/mutation operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the group already exists. No output schema is provided, so the agent cannot anticipate the response format.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose. However, it may be too brief, omitting necessary context.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome of the creation, error handling, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'subject' described as 'Group name.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new group.' is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from sibling group tools like evolution_group_accept_invite or evolution_group_update_subject by using 'create'. However, it lacks specificity about the group type (e.g., WhatsApp group via Evolution API), which is implied by context but not explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evolution_group_accept_invite or evolution_group_fetch_all. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing an active instance or valid participant JIDs), nor any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.

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