add_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool adds a 'new, empty' group layer and describes parameters, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., if parent_group doesn't exist), file state prerequisites, or side effects. Minimal but not misleading.

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: two main sentences plus a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings well. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a simple modification tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 no property descriptions, but the Args section in the description adds full meaning: 'filename' as the file to modify, 'group_name' as the new group name, and 'parent_group' as an optional path with default top-level behavior. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Add a new, empty group layer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_layer and duplicate_layer by explaining how to combine them, 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?

The description explicitly advises to 'Combine with add_layer(group=...) / duplicate_layer(group=...) to build a grouped layer structure', providing clear context on when to use this tool and its relation to alternatives. No explicit exclusions but sufficient guidance.

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