Create User Group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly identifies this as a write operation. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the 409 error on duplicate names and the source of member IDs. No contradictions.

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 three short sentences, each adding a key piece of information: purpose, source of member IDs, and error condition. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers creation, member assignment, and conflict error. It could mention behavior with invalid member IDs, but overall it's sufficient for a create operation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the connection between users parameter and list_users, reinforcing the schema's description. It also clarifies that description is the group name.

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 tool's purpose: creating a new user group and assigning members. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_user_group and update_user_group by mentioning the specific action and the uniqueness constraint (409 conflict on duplicate name).

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 guidance on obtaining member IDs from list_users and warns about the 409 conflict for duplicate names. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the context of siblings and the creation nature imply appropriate usage.

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