Ungroup elements

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: one-level-per-call semantics mirroring Archicad, survival of nested sub-groups unless completely=true, and the shape of the return payload including per-guid error entries. It does not spell out the fate of the member elements after dissolution or permission requirements, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and input contract, followed by the nesting rule and return shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description inlines the response structure (dissolvedGroups, elementCount, remainingGroup, error), and the destructive/idempotent annotations are complemented by the one-level dissolution semantics. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that passing any member element dissolves its top-level group, a semantic the schema only hints at with 'Group GUIDs or member element GUIDs'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dissolves groups') and even anchors it to the Archicad menu path (Edit > Grouping > Ungroup), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like group_elements, merge_elements, and unmerge_elements.

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?

Explains exactly what input is acceptable (group GUIDs or any member element, with the top-level group being dissolved) and clarifies the scope of a single call. It gives strong context but does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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