Group elements into a labelled box

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark non-read-only/non-destructive) by detailing behavioral traits: 'The members keep their ids, and every connection to or from them keeps working - including connections that cross the boundary.' It also explains how the layout parameter affects arrangement and the default behavior ('manual' keeps current positions). This provides rich behavioral context the agent needs for safe invocation.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with only 9 sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage examples, behavioral guarantees, parameter guidance, and a crucial limitation for nesting. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, 100% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the grouping behavior, parameter effects, constraints ('Only top-level elements can be grouped'), and nesting strategy. There are no gaps in understanding what the tool does or how to use it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the layout parameter options in natural language ('vertical stacks them, horizontal puts them in a row, grid wraps them') and clarifying the scope of elementIds ('top-level elements'). However, it doesn't add meaning to all 7 parameters (e.g., fill, stroke, sceneId are not elaborated beyond 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Wrap existing top-level elements in a labelled container'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'add_element' (which adds individual elements, not grouping) and 'render_diagram' (which visualizes the whole scene). The examples concretely illustrate its scope and differentiate it from other tools.

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 explicit usage examples ('put all of this inside a box called AWS'), including when to use it ('group these services into a VPC') and a clear limitation ('Only top-level elements can be grouped') with guidance on how to handle nesting ('create the inner one first, then group it together with its siblings'). This effectively tells the agent when and how to use this tool over alternatives.

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