group_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds the return format and the non-empty list requirement, but does not disclose potential side effects such as reparenting or repositioning existing nodes. It provides some behavioral context beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the requirement/return value second. There is no redundant phrasing, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, a usage constraint, and the return value. It lacks details about error conditions or the effect on the original nodes, but these are not critical for basic understanding. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 descriptions cover both name and nodeIds, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds the constraint that nodeIds must be a non-empty list, which is not present in the schema. It does not further explain the name parameter beyond the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 uses the verb 'Group' with the resource 'nodes under their shared parent', clearly indicating the action and scope. It also mentions the return value for the new group, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ungroup_nodes and move_nodes.

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 usage from its purpose and the requirement that nodeIds be non-empty, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reparent_nodes or move_nodes. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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