plasticity_create_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral constraint beyond the annotations (root Scene group cannot be nested), but says nothing about creation semantics, atomicity, or failure behavior.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the nesting constraint appended as a brief caveat. Nothing redundant against the structured fields.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the entity inputs and one nesting rule but omits the semantics of the required revision token and the name/intent fields, so it is adequate but not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It maps the four content arrays (bodyIds, instanceIds, referenceMeshIds, groupIds) to concrete entity types, which is useful, but it leaves name, intent, and the required revision parameter unexplained.

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 (Create) and resource (native Plasticity group) and enumerates what the group can wrap: current bodies, linked instances, approximate reference meshes, and child groups. The resource and scope are unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling grouping tools like move_to_group or dissolve_groups.

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 description implies usage by listing acceptable grouping inputs and gives one boundary rule (the root Scene group cannot be nested), but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as move_to_group, activate_group, or rename_group, leaving routing to inference.

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