create_group_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it warns that every call creates a new chat and Graph will not reuse a group chat with identical members, which is non-obvious behavior an agent must plan around. It omits permission/auth requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the alternative-tool routing in the second sentence, then compact per-parameter lines. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, no-dedupe behavior, and all parameter formats. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must supply param meaning, and it documents all three: member_emails with an explicit comma-separated sign-in-address format plus an example, and topic/message as optional. It adds real format guidance beyond the bare schema property names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new group chat') with an explicit scope qualifier ('you and at least two other users'), which immediately distinguishes it from the single-recipient sibling create_chat.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to an alternative ('For one other person use create_chat') with the exact condition that selects it. It also discloses when NOT to expect reuse, telling the agent this is not an idempotent get-or-create.

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