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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it's a destructive mutation. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that storage paths and saved designs remain unchanged, which reassures about the scope of destruction. It also explains the grouping behavior by device and platform.

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 sentences, no waste. The primary action and condition are front-loaded, and the side-effect clarification follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a mutation tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavior and one key side effect. However, it omits what paths and projectId represent, and assumes the folder already exists without stating it. The output schema handles return values, so that's not a gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the folderId parameter's nullable behavior (ungroups when null). The paths array (up to 50 asset paths) and projectId are not described at all, leaving significant gaps.

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 (groups/ungroups) and resource (screenshot assets) with a clear condition (folderId null). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_asset_folder or delete_asset_folder, but the core action is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it.

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