ungroup_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the mutating nature through the dry-run and expected hash verification, and also notes that distances are in millimetres regardless of document units. However, it doesn't discuss locked components, transaction context, or other side effects, so it is not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences: first states the core action, third gives crucial safety steps. The middle sentence about distances is somewhat tangential to ungrouping but not verbose. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 complexity (7 params, nested selector, mutating operation), the description covers the essential safety workflow but lacks guidance on selection semantics, locked handling, and transaction prerequisites. The output schema exists, so return values are not a gap, but a more complete description would address edge behaviors.

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 description explains dry_run and expected_sha256 semantics in detail, which is valuable. But with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it leaves selector, path, txid, allow_locked, and remove_empty_groups unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 the action: 'Remove selected components from groups and prune only empty groups.' It identifies a specific verb (remove), resource (components from groups), and scope (prune only empty groups), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like group_components.

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 a strong safe-usage protocol: 'dry_run=true previews without writing. Set dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and pass its expected_sha256.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool safely, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar operations.

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