Agrupar / desagrupar

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 implies a mutation operation but does not state whether grouping is reversible, what happens to existing layers when ungrouping, required document state, or any permissions/rate concerns. For a destructive-capable structure mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is efficient, though cramming both group and ungroup into one line sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

With 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine which parameters are relevant to which operation, what the tool returns, or how ungroup interacts with the layers parameter.

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 57%. The description names group attributes ('con nombre, modo de fusión, efectos') which maps to the name, blend, and effects parameters, but several parameters (doc, layers, opacity, ungroup) receive no description-level clarification. The schema itself documents doc, blend, layers, and effects reasonably well, which provides partial compensation.

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 dual-purpose: group layers into a named group with blend mode and effects, or ungroup a group. The verb+resource is clear ('agrupa capas', 'desagrupa un grupo'), and it is distinguishable from siblings, though the dual behavior is compressed into one sentence.

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 explicit guidance on when to use grouping vs ungrouping, nor which parameters apply to which mode. The ambiguity of whether the tool groups or ungroups in a given call is left to inference.

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