create_group

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

Annotations already indicate it's a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful for knowing when the tool works, but does not disclose potential side effects or failure modes, leaving the openWorldHint annotation unaddressed.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created group's sys_id). It does not. Also, it provides no context about the optional parameters (description, manager) or any side effects implied by openWorldHint. The description is incomplete for a creation tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. The mandatory requirement is an operational condition, not parameter semantics.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'assignment group', and includes a requirement. It distinguishes from other create_ tools by specifying the resource type. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes an assignment group.

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 a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other create_ tools or update_group. No explicit context for selection.

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