add_service_group

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that by explaining the staged-candidate-config behavior and the need to commit. This clarifies the side-effect profile and timing without contradicting the annotations.

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 one front-loaded sentence with a clear modifier tag and no wasted words. It immediately communicates purpose and critical workflow behavior.

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?

The schema documents all parameters and required fields, while the description adds the crucial candidate-config/commit workflow. It does not describe return values, but for a config-creation tool without an output schema, the essential information for calling it correctly is present.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general meaning around 'members' as service object names, but does not explain the firewall parameter's role or other parameter nuances beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('service group'), and clarifies the group contains 'one or more service objects'. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling operations like get_service_groups or delete_service_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 clear operational context: the change is 'Staged in candidate config' and 'requires commit to activate'. This tells an agent when and how the tool fits into the workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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