plasticity_activate_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the group-ID-0 root convention, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about the revision parameter, persistence, or undo implications of this state change. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the ID-0 special case follows it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose and the ID-0 convention but omits what revision means and what the tool returns on success. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters (id, intent, revision). It explains only the sentinel value for id (0 = root Scene group) and leaves both intent and revision completely uninterpreted, so the compensation is partial at best.

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+resource: making a named native Plasticity group the active destination for newly created objects. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_create_group, plasticity_move_to_group, and plasticity_rename_group. It is not tautological and an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('newly created objects' go into the activated group) and an explicit edge-case instruction: group ID 0 restores creation to the root Scene group. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it (e.g., for moving existing objects, use plasticity_move_to_group), so it stops 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.