rhino_group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is a mutating operation, and the description's 'Group objects together' is consistent with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not disclose that a group is created, how existing groupings are affected, or any side effects. No contradiction exists.

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 one compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the '(named)' qualifier efficiently signals the optional naming capability.

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 simple tool with a clear input schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer that it should pass object_ids and optionally a name. But it lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, and it does not clarify behavioral effects, leaving some context gaps for confident tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only hints at the 'name' parameter with '(named) group'. It does not explain object_ids, the active document default in doc_id, or the optional null name. The schema provides some structure, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Group objects together under a (named) group.' It clearly states what the tool does and foreshadows the optional name parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rhino_group_selected or rhino_ungroup, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_group_selected or rhino_ungroup. The description does not state prerequisites, whether explicit object_ids are required, or any exclusions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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