set_util_group_name

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the cascading side effect: every referencing step's kind is rewritten across flows. It also notes that a group may be brand-new and explains the default-group behavior, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 compact but information-dense; each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, side effect/contrast, and parameter usage. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's side-effect complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, how it affects existing flows, how groupName works, and how default behavior is triggered. No critical missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning to groupName by showing how to pass it or omit it for the default group, and the example clarifies that name identifies the util. Project is already described in the schema, so the low 33% schema coverage is partially compensated by the 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 opens with a specific action: 'Move an existing util into a (possibly brand-new) group', and gives a concrete example (connectDb to db-helpers). It also distinguishes itself from delete_util/delete_page_object by emphasizing that it cascades, making its purpose clear relative to siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: when moving a util between groups while preserving flow references, and notes it is safe even when flows already reference the util. It contrasts with delete_util/delete_page_object, and explains that omitting groupName returns the util to the default group.

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