Group nodes

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: the shared-parent constraint and which editors are verified. It still omits what happens to the resulting group (returns an id? changes selection?) and whether the source nodes are consumed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate constraint. Nothing superfluous, though the editor-support note is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description covers the key precondition and environment limits, which is decent. It still leaves the return value and the fate of the child nodes unexplained.

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 coverage is 50% (only session and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema), so the description must carry more. It adds a real constraint on nodeIds ('must share one parent'), but the 'name' parameter is never explained and there is no hint about the 200-item cap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Wrap') and resource ('nodes into a GROUP'), and the uppercase GROUP clarifies the resulting node type, which distinguishes it from figma_boolean_nodes or figma_flatten_nodes. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives one precondition ('all nodes must share one parent') and environment support ('Editors: Design; unverified: FigJam, Slides'), but offers no guidance on when to group vs. frame, boolean, or combine-as-variants. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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