group_nodes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that nodeIds must be non-empty and specifies the return object, providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentence plus brief notes on requirements and return. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes all essential information without extraneous details.

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 complexity (grouping nodes), the description covers purpose, input requirements, and output. However, it does not specify side effects like whether original nodes become children or are removed, which would enhance completeness.

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%, but the description adds the requirement that nodeIds must be non-empty, which is not in the schema. It also specifies the return shape, adding value beyond the schema definitions.

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 the action ('Group nodes'), the resource ('under their shared parent'), and the return shape. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ungroup_nodes' and 'reparent_nodes' by specifying grouping under a shared parent with a new group creation.

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 when to use the tool (grouping nodes under a shared parent) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like 'reparent_nodes' or 'combine_as_variants' exist, but no guidance is given.

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