set_object_query_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it creates the query group if absent, and for partitions it uses the first partition or a specific path. These are valuable beyond the schema, though it omits whether existing group membership is replaced or appended.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It repeats the objectType enum that is already in the schema, which is a minor redundancy, but every sentence otherwise contributes useful context. No filler.

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 assignment tool, the description covers main inputs and the auto-create behavior. However, it does not explain whether the object is moved between groups or if multiple groups are supported, nor does it mention error conditions or permissions. Given no output schema, some additional context would be helpful but not critical.

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 covers most parameters (name, objectType, queryGroupFolder) with 75% coverage. The description adds the 'uses its first partition' nuance for the name parameter, but otherwise repeats schema info. It does not explain sessionId, but that is a common pattern. Schema does the heavy lifting, with marginal added value.

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 a specific action ('Put a shared expression or a table partition into a query group') with explicit resource types and destination. It also disambiguates from sibling tools like add_query_group by focusing on assigning existing objects rather than just creating groups.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (for assigning expressions/partitions to display folders) and provides important usage details like objectType values and partition naming conventions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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