create_vulnerability_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond them: the WRITE_ENABLED=true gate, which an agent must know before attempting the call, plus the note that the record is task-based and therefore supports assignment and state fields. Return value and failure behavior remain unstated.

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 short sentences, the resource identified first and the operational gate second — nothing is buried. The bold markdown on the write warning and the slash-joined tool name are slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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 write tool with no output schema, the critical preconditions are covered, but an agent still lacks the required-parameter cue (short_description), any statement of what the call returns, and — most importantly in this sibling set — how this differs from create_remediation_task and create_vulnerable_item.

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%, so every parameter including the full state enum is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's only added semantic is the framing that assignment_group, assigned_to and state work here because the record is task-based, which is mild value over the schema text.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Create a Vulnerability Group / Remediation Task') and names the backing table (sn_vul_vulnerability), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, separate itself from the sibling 'create_remediation_task', which appears to overlap substantially — the slash-joined name actually muddies that boundary rather than clarifying it.

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 only guidance is a precondition ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which is useful but tells the agent about environment gating rather than when to pick this over 'create_remediation_task', 'update_vulnerability_group', or 'add_vi_to_remediation_task'. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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