rhino_ungroup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds the behavioral detail 'releasing its members', but it does not disclose what happens if the group does not exist, whether it affects nested groups, or any side effects. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds limited extra context beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrases, making it efficient and clear for the agent to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention behavior on missing group or error conditions, but these are secondary given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema describing return values. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'group_name' as 'Name of the group to ungroup', which fully covers its semantics. The tool description's mention of 'named group' adds no new information about the parameter's format or constraints, so it provides marginal value over 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 verb 'Ungroup' and the resource 'a named group', and adds 'releasing its members' which clarifies the effect. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like rhino_group (which groups) and rhino_explode (which breaks curves/surfaces), so an agent can tell apart the intended operation.

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 implies when to use the tool – when you want to ungroup a named group – but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rhino_explode or rhino_join. There is no exclusion or comparative guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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