Add a GDevelop object group

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds 'editable' but fails to disclose whether an existing group with the same name is overwritten, whether objectNames must reference existing scene objects, or any error/failure behavior. It communicates that this is a mutation but not its side effects.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description provides only usage intent. It omits prerequisites, duplicate behavior, and the relationship between the group and scene objects, so an agent lacks complete information for reliable 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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. While names like projectId and sceneName are self-explanatory, the meaning of objectNames (must they refer to existing objects? are duplicates allowed?) and behavior on name conflicts are unaddressed, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the resource ('editable scene object group'), and it clarifies the purpose: authoring shared enemy, pickup, or platform events. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_scene_object and add_object_instance.

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 clear contexts for use (shared enemy, pickup, platform events) and implies grouping common objects for event authoring. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, stopping short of a 5.

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