fusion_rigid_group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms a write operation ('lock') and non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose side effects on existing constraints or behaviors like re-locking already grouped components.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and condition. Concise but could be more structured with bullet points or separate lines for clarity.

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 details on what happens to existing joints or constraints when grouping, behavior of 'include_children', and effect on component transformations. Without output schema, the description should clarify return value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'components' ('pass a list of names') but does not explain 'include_children' (default true). No details on allowed items in the array.

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 action ('lock'), the resource ('components'), and the condition ('2+ components', 'as a rigid group'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'joint' and 'ground_component' by specifying rigid grouping.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies use for rigid grouping but lacks comparison to joints or grounding.

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