group_components

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: distances are force-normalized to millimetres regardless of document units, dry-run is non-writing, and a SHA-256 hash must be passed to commit. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it doesn't explain the effect of reuse or locked components.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then a critical unit caveat, then a concise safety workflow. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, nested selector schema, and an output schema, the description covers the safety-critical dry-run/commit flow but omits the meaning of reuse, group_id, selector, and lock handling, leaving the tool partially specified.

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 0%, and the description only adds semantics for dry_run and expected_sha256, plus a units caveat. The required selector, group_id, path, txid, and allow_locked are left unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create or reuse a documented DipTrace PCB group') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ungroup_components and group_bom by focusing on PCB grouping with transactional semantics.

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?

It provides an explicit usage workflow: dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. It also warns about units normalization. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like ungroup_components.

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