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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say whether source shapes are consumed, whether the group is returned or named, or what happens to shapes spanning artboards — a meaningful gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two words with zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded scope, precondition, or effect statement to anchor the call.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, zero documented parameters, and no required parameters declared, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly. Nothing explains the resulting group, its name, or its artboard.

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 0% across three parameters (name, artboard, shape_ids), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them — notably it never says what name does or how artboard scopes the grouping. Only the loose inference that shape_ids are the shapes being grouped is recoverable from the tool name.

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?

"Group shapes" restates the tool name and title without adding specificity about what grouping means here (combining into a group node, preserving order, target container). It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like ungroup, name_group, boolean_op, or make_symbol, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., shapes must be selected or share an artboard), and no mention of the natural counterpart ungroup. The agent gets no criteria for selecting this over boolean_op or create_shapes.

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