group_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing what happens to the original instances (e.g., moved or copied), whether they are reparented, or any permission requirements. The optional 'groupName' and default 'groupType' are not discussed behaviorally.

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, concise sentence effectively conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., whether instances are moved or copied, effects on existing hierarchy) and does not mention return values or error conditions. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for nuanced contexts.

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 100% (paths, groupName, groupType all have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or usage notes, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and the objects affected ('multiple instances') along with the destination container types ('Model or Folder'). It is specific and effectively distinguishes this tool from its inverse sibling 'ungroup_objects'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reparent_object' or 'create_object'. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where grouping is appropriate.

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