group_tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say what happens if the named group already exists, whether a new group is created, what occurs when zero tabs match, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating tab-group tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single sentence with the action and matching rule front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Slightly awkward phrasing around 'into a group named title' but structurally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key behaviors of a mutating tool unspecified (existing-group handling, no-match behavior), so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters: 'words' is matched against tab title/URL and 'title' is the resulting group name. However, it omits the expected format of 'words' (space-separated? case sensitivity? AND semantics are only implied by 'all').

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 names a specific verb (group), the resource (open tabs), the matching condition (title/URL containing all the words), and the result (a group named title). It is clear on its own, but it never references or distinguishes itself from close siblings like organize_tabs or manage_group.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus organize_tabs, manage_group, or open_folder_as_group. No preconditions or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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