etabs_add_to_group

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

The description discloses that the tool can add or remove controlled by the 'remove' flag, and annotations indicate idempotency. However, it does not explain effects like whether adding a non-existent object creates it, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. Given annotations cover idempotency, the description adds some but not deep behavioral context.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a bullet-style parameter list. Each line earns its place, no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, then parameter details, then return type. Ideal length and organization.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema (confirmation), the description covers what an agent needs to use it correctly. It explains the main operation, parameters, and returns. No major gaps for its complexity level.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It provides clear, meaningful explanations for all four parameters: 'name' (object name), 'group_name' (group name), 'object_type' (allowed values listed), and 'remove' (controls add vs remove). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/constraint info.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Add or remove an object from a group.' It specifies the primary action (add/remove) and the resource (object/group), and distinguishes itself from siblings like etabs_define_group (which creates groups) and etabs_add_area (which adds areas, not to a group).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if the object is already in the group). No guidance on choosing between add and remove contexts.

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