ungroup_objectsRelease a group's children to its parent layer without activating Illustrator. Provide the group UUID to split grouped objects in background mode.
Ungroup a group, releasing its children to the parent layer. Runs without activating Illustrator in default background mode; never invokes Computer Use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the group to ungroup |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0-local.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: where children are re-parented ('to the parent layer') and that it runs headlessly without activating Illustrator or invoking Computer Use.
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 compact sentences with the core effect front-loaded and the execution-mode note second. No wasted words, though the Computer Use remark is a somewhat meta aside.
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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description plus annotations (destructive/not-idempotent) and the fully documented schema give an agent enough to invoke it correctly, including the non-obvious re-parenting behavior. No output schema exists, so return format need not be described.
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% and the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema ('UUID of the group to ungroup'). The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource ('Ungroup a group') and clarifies the effect with 'releasing its children to the parent layer,' which is more than a restatement of the name. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling group_objects, though it never names that 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. that the target must be a group), and no reference to alternatives or the inverse group_objects tool. The second sentence addresses execution mode, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.