zerodom_use_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key state change and its forward-looking effect on new tabs. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs: whether the group must already exist, what happens if `name` is unknown, and whether the active-group selection persists across calls or sessions.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the consequential side effect. Nothing is wasted and no reading is required to find the operative verb.

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 values need not be explained. For a state-mutating tool in a crowded group-management family, though, the definition lacks the error behavior and persistence details that would let an agent call it confidently without trial and error.

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 0% and the sole parameter has no description, so the description is the only source of meaning; it establishes that `name` refers to a group. It doesn't clarify whether this is a group name, an ID, or a title, nor case sensitivity or matching rules, leaving the single parameter under-specified.

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 and resource ('make `name` the active group') and clarifies the observable effect ('subsequent new tabs join it'), which distinguishes it from siblings like zerodom_create_group, zerodom_list_groups, and zerodom_close_group. It doesn't explicitly contrast against the closer-sounding siblings zerodom_adopt_group or zerodom_set_scope, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'subsequent new tabs join it' implies the use case (routing upcoming tabs into a group), so the context is inferable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus zerodom_adopt_group, zerodom_set_scope, or zerodom_create_group, and no prerequisites are stated.

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