Group Nodes

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: true, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It does not mention side effects, implications for node hierarchy, or any constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is overly minimal. It could be more informative without being longer. Efficiency is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Despite having a relatively simple structure (2 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description lacks contextual details about the grouping behavior, node state changes, and expected output. More completeness is warranted.

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 coverage is 100% as all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific action 'wrap multiple nodes in a new group node,' using a verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'node_ungroup' and 'create_frame' by focusing on grouping existing nodes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools for similar operations (e.g., create_frame, node_ungroup), explicit usage conditions would be valuable.

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