dingtalk_chat_group_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action with no mention of permissions, side effects, idempotency, return value, or what happens to the created group. This fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the literal name.

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 extremely short but does not earn its place as it restates the tool name. While concise, it lacks substantive content, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 creation tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., group ID), what constitutes valid users, or any post-creation effects, leaving the agent without critical context for invocation.

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% with both parameters (name and users) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 '创建群聊' is a direct translation of the tool name 'dingtalk_chat_group_create', making it tautological. It confirms the action but does not add any distinguishing detail relative to sibling chat tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dingtalk_chat_group_members_add or dingtalk_chat_send_message, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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