add_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the document is mutated on disk, if the operation is undoable, or if it requires a saved file). For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap, though the simplicity of adding a layer group mitigates severity slightly.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it does not earn a high conciseness score because the brevity sacrifices necessary context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should clarify parent_group semantics, document preconditions, and any return value. None are provided. For an agent to call this correctly, it would need to inspect the schema and guess behavior, which is a clear completeness gap.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. The phrase 'named layer group' implies group_name is the name, but filename and parent_group are entirely unmentioned. The agent is left to guess the meaning of parent_group and its default behavior from the schema bare names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a named layer group to an Aseprite document.' It clearly identifies the action and target document. It does not explicitly differentiate from add_layer, but the term 'group' inherently distinguishes the resource type, so it is specific enough for an agent to grasp the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_layer, create_tilemap_layer, or other layer operations. An agent must infer selection from the name alone, which is insufficient for confident tool choice.

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