remove_from_group

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

The description simply restates the destructive action already declared by destructiveHint=true. It does not add context about error behavior (e.g., what happens if the node is not in the group), idempotency, or any side effects. No additional behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and target, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple and fully covered by the schema (100% parameter documentation). No output schema is needed since the operation returns nothing significant. The description sufficiently communicates the core operation, though it could mention edge cases like non-existent groups, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 four parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Remove a node from one or more groups in a scene' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource (a node) and the target (groups). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_group and remove_node.

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?

The description implies the use case (removing a node from groups) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like add_to_group or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It relies on the agent inferring the context from the operation itself.

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