object_group

Does 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 states the action ('묶습니다' - groups/binds) but doesn't explain what grouping means in this context—whether it creates a new logical entity, affects object properties, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like locking objects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. The structure is clear but minimalistic.

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?

Given the complexity of a grouping operation (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens to grouped objects, whether the operation is reversible, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely modifies object relationships, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'objectIds' as an array of object IDs to group, and 'groupId' as an optional group ID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a group ID is used for or constraints on object selection. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '여러 객체를 그룹으로 묶습니다' (groups multiple objects together) states a clear verb+resource action, but it's somewhat vague about what 'grouping' entails operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'object_ungroup' or 'layer_merge', which also manipulate object collections. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the grouping mechanism or outcome.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing objects), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'object_ungroup' for reversal or 'layer_merge' for similar grouping operations. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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