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

Adds crucial lifecycle context beyond annotations: it writes to chain, prepares an unsigned intent for the signer, and nothing happens until the agent signs with geode-local-signer and submits with geode_submit_intent. This clearly discloses the two-step transaction model and dependency chain.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads purpose, the second explains the transaction workflow. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains the return conceptually (an unsigned intent) plus the required next steps. It omits authorization/ownership requirements for updating group settings, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 75%, with signer, group_id, and description already documented. The description maps 'search visibility' to the otherwise undocumented hide_from_search boolean, but does not explain its true/false semantics or add format details 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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a group's description and search visibility'), immediately distinguishing this tool from account-settings updates and other group operations like join/leave/create. An agent can tell what it does and roughly which sibling category it belongs to.

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 usage (change group description/search visibility) but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say whether group ownership/admin is required or when to prefer this over other group-management tools.

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