add_address_group

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: changes are staged in candidate config and require a separate 'commit' to activate. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the operation's lifecycle.

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 short, front-loaded with the '[MODIFIES CONFIG]' signal, and every clause adds value: what the tool creates, what the group contains, and the staging/commit behavior. There is no wasted text.

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 config-modifying tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, staging, and activation requirement. It could optionally clarify what happens if the group name already exists or whether members must already exist, but the schema and annotations cover most operational essentials.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the 'one or more address objects' intent, which aligns with the members array's minItems constraint, but adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and a specific resource ('static address group'), and clarifies that it contains 'one or more address objects'. This clearly distinguishes it from add_address_object and add_service_group, and the 'static' qualifier separates it from any dynamic grouping behavior.

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 gives clear context: use this when creating a static address group from existing address objects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the staging/commit note tells the agent the follow-up action needed.

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