Group or ungroup

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: grouping places the new group inside the first node's parent, and ungrouping returns the released children. Since destructiveHint=true already flags mutation, this additional placement and return behavior is valuable and non-contradictory.

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, front-loads the core operations, uses a clear 'group — ... / ungroup — ...' structure, and ends with a useful routing guideline. Every sentence contributes meaning without repetition or filler.

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 two-action mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, placement, and the main alternative. Ungroup's return behavior is stated. Minor gaps remain, such as what group returns and edge-case constraints, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 each parameter has a clear description (name for group, action for which operation, nodeId for ungroup, nodeIds for group with a max of 20). The main description adds only the parent-placement nuance already reflected in the schema, so it does not need to compensate further.

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 precisely defines both supported actions: group puts nodeIds into a new group inside the first node's parent, and ungroup dissolves a group or frame and returns its children. It clearly distinguishes this dual-purpose tool from sibling creation tools like figma_create_frame.

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?

Explicitly states when grouping is the right choice ('several layers are one thing but need no layout of their own') and names the alternative figma_create_frame with auto layout when layout is needed. This gives an agent a clear decision rule between tools.

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