nex_browser_group_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that duplicate group names are rejected, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether creation is idempotent), return values, or any prerequisites beyond 'active workspace'. The uniqueness rejection is the only behavioral trait beyond the schema, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the uniqueness constraint and alternatives appended. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple create operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action, the uniqueness constraint, and routes to related operations. The only missing piece is a return value description, but the absence of an output schema suggests it is not critical. The context (active workspace) is stated, so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the uniqueness requirement for 'name' that is already in the schema ('must be unique inside the active team'), adding no new semantic detail. The 'seq' parameter is fully described in the schema. Thus, the description adds no value beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3 for high 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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a concrete resource ('one window group'), and the scope ('in the active NexBrowser workspace'). It also clarifies the uniqueness constraint, distinguishing it from group modification and moving operations by naming sibling tools. This is unambiguous and clearly differentiates from related 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?

The description explicitly directs the agent to use nex_browser_group_modify for renaming and nex_browser_move_to_group for placing windows, thereby defining when this tool is appropriate and providing alternatives. Though it doesn't state an explicit 'not for' case, the purpose is clear and the alternatives cover the main adjacent operations.

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