add_to_group

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

The description adds little beyond what annotations already state (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose whether adding to an existing group is idempotent, whether new groups can be created, or any side effects on the scene.

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, straightforward sentence with no fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple mutation tool with good schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of return values, error behavior, or whether node/group must already exist, which could leave an agent uncertain about expected outcomes.

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% and all parameters have descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Add a node to one or more groups in a scene') with a distinct verb and resource. It easily differentiates from sibling tools like remove_from_group, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_from_group or add_node. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios favoring this operation over others.

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