create_access_group

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a simple 'create'. It does not explain what happens on success, error handling, or side effects. The description also incorrectly lists required fields, omitting the schema-required orgUnitId, which is misleading.

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 concise—a single sentence plus a list of required and optional fields. However, the inaccuracy regarding required parameters detracts from its effectiveness. It is front-loaded but flawed.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, such as what the access group is used for, how orgUnitId relates to orgUnitIds, or return value. It fails to do so, leaving gaps.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by grouping parameters into 'Required' and 'Optional', but it inaccurately excludes orgUnitId from required fields. This error undermines the added value.

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 'Create a new organization-unit-type access group', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_access_groups or create_device_access_group. However, it omits the required orgUnitId parameter, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., create_device_access_group) might be more appropriate.

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