Add a group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the created group is empty, but says nothing about undoability, persistence, name uniqueness, parent-child semantics, or what happens when a parent is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the creation purpose followed by the one positional hint. No filler.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition covers only one parameter and none of the behavioral risks. Substantially incomplete.

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 four parameters. The description only clarifies origin ('Position it with origin'), leaving name, parent, and rotation entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb (create) and resource (empty group/bone) and clarifies the resource's role: holding elements or driving animation. It implicitly distinguishes from bb_group_elements (which groups existing elements), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 by 'to hold elements or drive animation,' and it hints that origin sets position, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as bb_add_element or bb_group_elements.

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