Group Nodes

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

The description only says 'wrap' with no detail about side effects such as nodes being reparented, the group insertion order, or failure modes if the provided nodeName does not match. The openWorldHint annotation warns of unknown effects but does not compensate for the lack of disclosed known behaviors.

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 filler, directly stating the operation. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The description omits critical operational context for a mutation tool: the requirement that nodeName must exactly match the current node name, the reparenting behavior, and any constraints on nodes. The schema covers parameter semantics but not the overall behavioral contract, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with parameters already well-documented (e.g., name rejects empty strings, nodeName must be passed verbatim). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('wrap') and clear resource ('multiple nodes' into a 'new group node'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like node_ungroup and node_clone by stating exactly the grouping action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use grouping versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., nodes sharing the same parent, exact node names), and no exclusions. The action is implied by the tool name but the description itself does not give contextual direction.

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