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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that the group composes x/y/scale/rotation/opacity onto descendants, that pivots rotate/scale around pivotX/pivotY seeded to the child centroid, and that groups have no static body of their own—essential behavioral context beyond a simple 'wrap' statement.

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 long but every clause earns its place; it front-loads the action and decision rule, then packs transformation semantics and constraints into the following sentences. The example list is illustrative rather than filler, and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 grouping tool with complex transform semantics and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, use cases, naming importance, composition behavior, pivot seeding, translation offsets, and parent constraints—everything an agent needs to decide and execute the call 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that the group name becomes the user's only handle, that x/y values are translation offsets around the pivot, and that elementIds must share one parent—clarifying behavior that the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wrap sibling elements in a new group.' It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling tools like rename_group, ungroup_layers, and set_group_box by focusing on the act of grouping loose layers into one named composite.

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 explicit, actionable guidance: 'USE THIS whenever several layers are one thing,' backed by concrete examples like a butterfly or an icon. It also states the key precondition that all elementIds must share the same parent, and frames leaving multi-shape objects ungrouped as a defect, clarifying when this tool is the right choice.

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