object_ungroup

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 only states the action 'ungroup' without explaining what happens during ungrouping (e.g., whether objects retain their properties, if it's reversible, permission requirements, or side effects on sibling tools like 'object_list'). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation operation.

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 the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension, though it lacks depth.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like what 'ungroup' entails, potential impacts, or return values. While the parameter is fully covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and correct usage is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools with more descriptive names.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('groupId' is documented as '해제할 그룹 ID' or 'Group ID to ungroup'). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriately high. No compensation is needed as the schema fully defines the single required parameter.

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 '그룹을 해제합니다' (Ungroups) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'object_ungroup' in Korean. It specifies the verb 'ungroup' but doesn't clarify what resource is being ungrouped (objects, layers, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'object_group' or 'layer_merge'. While the action is clear, it lacks specificity about the target resource and differentiation from related operations.

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 an existing group), exclusions (e.g., not applicable to ungrouped objects), or related tools like 'object_group' for grouping or 'layer_merge' for similar operations. Without such context, an agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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