Group objects

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals that objects keep their transforms/styles, only parent changes, and specifies the return shape (CreateResult). It also states risk class 'medium (reversible write-new)'. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with sections like 'When to use', 'Key params', 'Return shape', 'Example', and 'Risk class'. It is efficient and front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise by combining some sentences. However, every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description explains return shape and pipeline fields. It covers usage guidelines, parameter details, behavioral notes, an example, and a safety note about rendering and restoring. It is fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains object_ids (≥1, all must exist) and object_id (to pin new group id). The doc_id parameter is mentioned but not detailed, which is acceptable as it's a common parameter. Overall adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool wraps existing objects into a new group, using the verb 'Wrap' and the resource 'objects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools create_group and reparent_object by specifying their different use cases.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'collecting several existing objects under one group.' It also includes when-not-to-use by directing to alternatives for empty groups (create_group) and single object moves (reparent_object).

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