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

The description explicitly warns that account_ids replaces the entire membership, not an incremental add, and tells agents to omit it to leave members alone. This adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations, especially the extent of the modification.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation summary and then the one subtle behavioral trap. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering mutability, the description covers the action, the full-replacement caveat, and the omit behavior. Nothing needed to call it safely 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 input schema already covers most parameters, and the description reinforces the key account_ids replacement semantics with a clear warning. It also maps 're-describe' to the description parameter, which lacks a schema description, slightly improving coverage.

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 names concrete actions ('rename', 're-describe', 'change membership') on the group resource, making the tool's function unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from siblings like groups_create, groups_delete, and groups_list by focusing on modifying an existing 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 clearly frames this as the tool for altering an existing group's name, description, or members. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make it obvious when to use groups_update versus create/delete.

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