modx_assign_resource_to_group

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't state whether the operation is idempotent, whether it requires a pre-existing group, whether it affects front-end visibility/permissions, or what the response looks like on success or failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere rather than by deliberate compression of rich information.

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 tool is genuinely simple: two required numeric IDs, fully described in the schema, and no output schema to explain. Given that low complexity, the description is nearly complete, with only ambiguity around idempotency and return behaviour remaining.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions ('Resource id.', 'Resource group id.'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification that 'resource' means a document, but provides no extra syntax, ID format, or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('resource/document') with the target container ('resource group'), so an agent immediately understands it creates a membership link. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours like modx_remove_resource_from_group or modx_grant_resourcegroup_access, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this versus related tools, and notably does not warn that granting a user group access to a resource group (modx_grant_resourcegroup_access) is a different operation. There are no preconditions such as the group needing to pre-exist, and no statement about what happens if the resource is already a member.

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