document.group_shapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals non-obvious cascade behavior (existing groups expand to include the whole group) and the return value (new group_id), but says nothing about what happens with invalid/nonexistent shape ids, which slide is used when slide_index is omitted, or whether the operation is undoable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each adding real information (cascade rule, return value). No filler or restated title.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage needs more than this. It covers behavior and the return value but omits slide_index semantics and error conditions, leaving the agent to guess on two of three parameters.

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 only 33% (only 'name' is documented), so the description needs to compensate and does not. Neither shape_ids nor slide_index is explained — notably it never clarifies whether slide_index is optional or defaults to the active slide, which materially affects invocation.

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?

States a specific verb ('wrap') and resource ('shape ids in a new logical Group on a slide'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of sibling document.ungroup. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the rule explaining that pre-grouped shapes pull in their whole group. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., document.align_shapes or script.run) or any preconditions like an open document.

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