Remove a Group wrapper from a slide to release its shapes back to normal editing. Identify the group by group_id or by any shape_id inside it.
Remove a Group wrapper. Pass either group_id or shape_id (any shape from the group).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | No | ||
| shape_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the group removal is reversible (e.g., via undo), what happens to the child shapes, what error occurs if the shape is not in a group, or whether the operation modifies the document state. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, 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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the action and parameter alternatives but omits critical behavioral context such as what happens to child shapes, reversibility, and error conditions.
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 so well by explaining that group_id and shape_id are alternatives and that shape_id can be any shape from the group. It does not clarify whether exactly one parameter is required or what happens if both or neither are provided, leaving some ambiguity despite the 0% coverage baseline.
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 verb and resource: 'Remove a Group wrapper.' It clearly identifies the operation as the inverse of grouping, distinguishing it from siblings like document.group_shapes. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or clarify whether the wrapper removal preserves child shapes.
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 'Pass either group_id or shape_id' and the statement that shape_id can be any shape from the group. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the shape must currently belong to a group), and no named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.