rhino_group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly implies a write operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, limits (e.g., max group size), or behavior with existing groups. Given the presence of annotations, the description provides minimal added context beyond the title.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, required array) and lack of detailed parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. It does not explain how groups interact with the document or other Rhino concepts.

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 low (0% except for doc_id). The description does not explain the meaning of 'name' or 'object_ids' beyond what the schema already states. It adds no parameter-level value.

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 clearly states the action (group objects) and the result (under a named group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rhino_move or rhino_object_delete, though it could be more explicit about what grouping entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide between this and other object manipulation tools.

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