Combine multiple objects into a single group for unified moving and hiding. Returns the group head name.
把多个对象编组为一个组（Group），便于整体移动/隐藏。返回组头名称。 [English] Group several objects into one Group for moving/hiding together. Returns the group head name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 组名。 | Group name. | |
| objects | No | 要编组的对象列表；省略则用当前选择。 | Objects to group; omit for the selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the return value (group head name) and the purpose (moving/hiding together). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like overriding existing group memberships or how it interacts with the scene hierarchy.
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 concise, with two short sentences covering purpose and return. It is front-loaded with the action and uses no unnecessary words.
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 description covers the essential context: it explains the operation, the return value, and the optional use of current selection (via parameter description). It doesn't mention interactions with sibling group tools, but for a simple grouping operation with no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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%, with both parameters adequately described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the action (group), the resource (objects), and the result (group head name). It distinguishes from siblings like open_group and ungroup_objects by focusing on the creation of a group.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_group, close_group, or ungroup_objects. It only states what it does without exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.