bb_group_elementsCreate a new group centered on selected elements and move those elements into it, keeping your Blockbench model organized without manual repositioning.
Create a new group around the given elements, positioned at their centre, and move the elements into it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| targets | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: it creates a group, positions it at the elements' centre, and moves the elements into it, indicating a mutation with positioning side effects. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, what happens to pre-existing groups, and error behavior, so it is only partially complete.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler; every clause carries information.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description explains the core operation adequately but leaves the 'name' parameter and error/edge-case behavior unaddressed.
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% and the description does not mention the 'name' parameter at all — it is only faintly implied by 'Create a new group'. 'targets' is gestured at via 'the given elements', but neither parameter is meaningfully documented beyond what the schema already shows.
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 and resource: creates a new group around given elements and moves them into it. It implicitly differentiates from bb_add_group (which likely adds to an existing group), but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is for creating a fresh group versus bb_add_group, with no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.