adobe_add_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing about what the creation mutates, how it interacts with existing layer order, or what happens when a group of the same name exists. For a destructive write with a surprising flag, staying silent leaves a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight, but the brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

The tool has five parameters, two of which are non-obvious optional controls, plus a destructive hint that the description never addresses. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but key invocation details such as where the group is created and how parent_path is interpreted are absent.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters. Only "name" is weakly implied by "named group"; application, session_id, and especially parent_path (nesting target) and expected_parent_name (a guard condition) are completely opaque from both schema and description. This is the clearest failure of the definition.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Create a named group"), which is better than a tautology, but the qualifier "for editable motifs or layered cartoon source parts" is domain jargon that does not clarify scope. It gives no signal distinguishing this from siblings like adobe_edit_layers or adobe_add_path, which also alter document structure.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an open session / document), and no mention of alternatives such as adobe_edit_layers for modifying existing groups. The agent must infer entirely from the name when grouping is the right operation.

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