Group Nodes

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

The annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating potential side effects. The description does not disclose whether original nodes are removed from their previous parent or how the group is positioned. With annotations hinting at broader impacts, the description should add context but does not.

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 that conveys the core action without waste. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without sacrificing conciseness.

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 an output schema (as indicated by context), the description does not mention the return value (e.g., the new group node info). Given the tool's complexity and the presence of a sibling ungroup tool, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions ('Name for the new group', 'Array of nodes to group'). The verb 'wrap' implies grouping but does not clarify parameter details.

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 'Wrap multiple nodes in a new group node.' clearly states the action (wrap), the target (multiple nodes), and the result (a new group node). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_ungroup, which performs the inverse operation.

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 such as node_clone or node_insert_child. Prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist in the same parent) are also absent.

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