group_visuals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses side effects (creates a group container, stamps each child with parentGroupName) and the return value. It lacks details about page handling or reversibility, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 uses five short sentences, front-loading the purpose and then explaining the mechanism and parameters. It is compact and contains no unnecessary filler, though the parameter details are interleaved somewhat informally.

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 description is complete enough for a grouping tool: it explains the operation, key parameter constraints, side effects, and return value. It does not mention error conditions or page-specific behavior, but given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, it provides sufficient context 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?

The schema already documents 75% of parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that visualNames come from list_visuals, groupName appears in the selection pane, and at least two visuals are required. It does not clarify reportSessionId or page, so it adds moderate but not complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool groups a set of visuals into a single group, with a specific mechanism (creates a group container and stamps parentGroupName). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ungroup_visuals and group_by by explaining the container creation and stamping behavior.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (to group visuals, analogous to Desktop's Group). It also mentions that visualNames come from list_visuals, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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