close_group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the notion of 're-collapse,' which clarifies the specific behavior, but it does not disclose what happens to objects inside the group or any side effects beyond collapsing. It adds a little context but relies on the annotation for the destructive nature.

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: two short sentences, with the English version front-loaded and no redundant wording. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. The destructive hint is in annotations, the parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the operation is clearly described. Nothing essential 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter, including its optionality and default to the selection. The description adds no additional parameter information, but given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are provided.

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: closing a previously opened group (re-collapsing it). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the term 're-collapse' distinguishes it from sibling tools like ungroup_objects or group_objects. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 tool is for groups that were previously opened, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ungroup_objects or open_group. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is inferable from the name and description.

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