group_graphics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states 'Group multiple graphics together' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether grouping is reversible, if it creates a new container, or if it affects canvas state). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loading the key information. No wasted text, though it could arguably include more context without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the result of grouping (e.g., behavior of the group, how to ungroup, or error handling), leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'ids' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Group multiple graphics together' uses a specific verb ('Group') and resource ('graphics'), clearly indicating the action and distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ungroup'. It is unambiguous and concise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to group vs. align or connect shapes). The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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