create_group

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

Without annotations, the description correctly states that the tool reparents shapes under a new group, indicating a mutation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as ordering, property preservation, or error conditions.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the mechanism. Highly efficient.

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?

Missing output schema means the agent needs to know what the tool returns (e.g., new group ID). The description does not mention return value, success indicators, or error handling, leaving a significant gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description echoes the schema's 'reparent' phrase but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states that the tool groups existing shapes into a new group by reparenting given shape ids. This distinguishes it from siblings like ungroup (reverse) and other shape creation tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the sibling tool 'ungroup' implies the reverse operation, the description does not clarify prerequisites or alternatives for grouping tasks.

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