Manage Tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: non-core groups start disabled to keep the tool list small. It does not explain the side effects of 'disable' (e.g. whether in-flight or persisted state is affected), leaving a modest gap.

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, front-loaded with the core capability, followed by the non-obvious default-state caveat. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the key default-disabled behavior and how to reveal groups, which is sufficient for this low-complexity meta-tool; only the exact effect of 'disable' is unstated.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters (action, group, tool) fully documented and an enum on 'action'. The description's example reinforces the action/group pairing but adds no syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('list or toggle') and resource ('tool groups'), which is clearly distinct from the Maya operation siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, but the meta-resource makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Explains when this matters — non-core groups (authoring/animation/rendering) are disabled by default — and gives a concrete enabling call ('action=enable, group=authoring'). It lacks explicit when-not/exclusion guidance, but the trigger condition is clear.

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