Ungroup Node

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

With annotations already indicating destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true), the description adds valuable context by explicitly stating that children are promoted to the parent and the group container is removed. This explains the differential impact on children versus the container, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the operation and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 low complexity, full schema documentation, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior. It explains the operation's effect on children and the group container without needing further detail about return values or prerequisites.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters, including the exact requirement for nodeName to be passed verbatim from node_info. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 (dissolve a group) and its specific outcome (promoting children to the parent and removing the group container). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like node_delete, which removes a node entirely, and node_group, which creates 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 implies the correct usage (ungrouping a group) and highlights the key behavioral effect of preserving children, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternative tools or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to node_delete or other siblings.

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