update_contact_group

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the verb 'edit'. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent (though annotations say it is not).

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 under-specified rather than concisely informative. A single sentence that essentially restates the tool name provides no added value, although it is not verbose. It is more of a placeholder than a meaningful description.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema, a minimal description might be acceptable, but this one leaves out any mention of constraints, prerequisites, return values, or typical usage scenarios. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently without additional inference.

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 50% (only contact_group_id has a description). The description does not clarify the semantics of the 'name' parameter, nor does it state that name is the only editable field. It fails to compensate for the partial schema 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 clearly identifies the action (edit) and the resource (contact group), making it distinct from sibling operations like create, delete, get, and list. However, it could be more specific about what exactly is edited (e.g., the name), though the schema provides that detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the need for an existing contact group ID or contrast with create_contact_group or delete_contact_group, leaving the agent without explicit context for selection.

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