undo_beginGroup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it discloses the core behavior (subsequent scripts collapse into a single undo step), an important limitation (separate calls are still separate entries), and the required teardown (undo_endGroup restores the default). It doesn't cover error behavior, nesting, or idempotency, so it falls short of full disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the key limitation and the cleanup call. No filler and nothing restated from the schema or a title.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model (grouping, scope, limitation, teardown) that an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Gaps are minor: document scoping of the group and failure/nesting behavior are not addressed, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and the single document_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the name/index option and front-document default. The description adds nothing about which document the group applies to, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Begin an undo group') and defines the scope of the group immediately. It also names its counterpart sibling undo_endGroup, so an agent can distinguish this from undo/redo/undo_history without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use it when a multi-step script/tool call should revert as one step ('e.g. a multi-step recipe'). It even supplies a negative guideline ('cannot merge separate calls into one step') and names the closing call. What's missing is an explicit ordering precondition (call before the scripts) and any exclusion relative to undo/redo.

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