group_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. "Wrap" implies mutation of the scene graph, but it does not state whether the group is a new node, whether children are reparented, whether existing parenting/parentNodeId behavior is overridden, or whether the operation is reversible (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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it is neither wasteful nor adequate.

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 three undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites, resulting behavior, and where the new group is placed, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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% across three parameters, and the description only loosely implies that "existing nodes" maps to nodeIds. The optional "name" and "parentNodeId" parameters are documented in neither the schema nor the description, so the agent gets no guidance on placement or naming semantics.

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 verb ("Wrap") and a resource ("existing nodes") with an outcome ("in a GROUP"), so the basic operation is inferable. However, it is close to a restatement of the tool name and gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as boolean_group, ungroup_node, or arrange_children, which an agent would need to choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like boolean_group and ungroup_node in the same namespace, the agent receives no help deciding when grouping is the right operation versus those alternatives.

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