group_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions grouping under a null object but does not explain side effects: whether object transforms are preserved, what happens when group_name is omitted, whether objects are reparented, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action stated first and parameters listed compactly. No filler or redundant material is present, though it is terse enough that some behavioral details are omitted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the parameter list is simple. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral guidance, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool: an agent cannot infer failure modes, side effects, or whether it is safe to call in a given scene state.

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%, but the description adds brief plain-language meanings for both parameters: object_names are the objects to group and group_name is optional. This compensates partially, though it doesn't explain naming conventions, default behavior for group_name, or whether names refer to scene node names specifically.

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 ('Group') and resource ('objects under a null object'), clearly conveying the tool's core function. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like list_objects or modify_object, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_object or create_mograph_cloner. The description states what the tool does but gives no context on prerequisites, scene hierarchy conventions, or when grouping is the appropriate operation.

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