ungroup_objects

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

Given annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds important context by clarifying that member objects are retained, meaning the destructive aspect is limited to dissolving the group container. It also discloses the flexible input behavior (head or any member), which is not visible in annotations. It does not cover edge cases like non-group objects or nested groups, but the key safety behavior is addressed.

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 two short sentences, bilingual but compact, with the action and outcome front-loaded. Every clause contributes meaning: what happens (ungroup), what is preserved (member objects), and how to identify the target (head or any member). No redundancy or filler.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together sufficiently cover purpose, input semantics, and the key destructive-safety note. Missing details like behavior on invalid objects or return values are minor and not essential for a correct call.

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 already documents the 'objects' parameter with 100% coverage, including optionality and fallback to current selection. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by stating that either the group head or any member is acceptable, which is not present in the schema's parameter description. This extra semantic justifies a score above the baseline.

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 states a specific action 'Ungroup' on objects, with the crucial clarification '(keeps the member objects)' that distinguishes it from object deletion. It also specifies that the group can be identified by its head or any member, reinforcing the tool's scope and differentiating it from sibling group operations like open_group and close_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 gives useful input guidance ('Pass the group head or any member') and the schema adds 'omit for the selection.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like open_group or close_group, so the agent must infer when permanent ungrouping is the right choice. There is no when-not or alternative guidance.

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