plasticity_move_to_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the operation collapses into "one native history step" and that "group cycles are rejected" (an error condition). It still omits permission requirements and what happens to objects already in a group, keeping it below 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and object scope, with the constraint (cycle rejection) last. No filler and no restating of the name.

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 destructive 7-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers what moves and one failure mode. It does not explain the required revision concurrency token, the intent field, or permissions, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently beyond the happy path.

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% across 7 params, so the description must carry the load. It loosely maps the four object-id arrays (bodyIds, instanceIds, referenceMeshIds, groupIds) to the listed object types, but says nothing about the two required params, destinationGroupId and revision, nor the intent field. Partial compensation for a high-coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ("Move") plus the exact resources handled (bodies, linked instances, reference meshes, whole child groups) and the destination (an existing destination group). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like plasticity_move, plasticity_move_instances, and plasticity_move_reference_meshes, which move the same objects without the group-assignment semantics.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this when you want to relocate the listed object types into a group rather than transform them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to alternatives such as plasticity_create_group or plasticity_move for non-group moves. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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