Group Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects. It merely states the action without mentioning whether grouping creates a new node, modifies existing parent-child relationships, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant transparency gap 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, concise sentence with no redundant wording, earning its place. However, it is under-specified, reflecting a lack of substance rather than deliberate efficiency.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what 'grouping' entails, the role of parentId, or the expected outcome, leaving significant context gaps.

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 already describes both parameters (nodeIds and parentId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 "Group multiple nodes together" clearly states the action (grouping) and the resource (nodes), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool ungroup_node. However, it lacks detail about the resulting structure (e.g., creating a new parent group node) that would fully disambiguate its scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ungroup_node or reparent_node. The description is purely behavioral with no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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