figma_group_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Group nodes together' without explaining what grouping entails (e.g., whether it creates a frame, changes node hierarchy, or requires a minimum number of nodes). There is no mention of side effects, permissions, or reversal, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

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 short (six words), which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It does not front-load any context beyond the basic action, and the sentence does not earn its place by adding meaningful detail. It is more a placeholder than a useful description.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation's constraints and effect. It does not explain when grouping is appropriate, what happens to the selected nodes, or any return value. The description is barely sufficient to define the tool's existence but not its usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (nodeIds and name). No additional meaning is provided beyond the bare property names in the schema. The description fails to clarify how the 'name' parameter is used or how nodeIds should be structured, leaving the agent to guess.

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 and resource: 'Group nodes together.' It identifies the verb 'group' and the resource 'nodes,' making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like figma_reparent_node or figma_move_node, though 'group' is a distinct operation in design tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing multiple nodes or whether the nodes must be on the same parent, nor does it contrast with other node-manipulation tools. Usage context is entirely absent.

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