lokalise_update_usergroup

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description accurately states the tool modifies the group and returns the updated configuration. It discloses what the tool does not do (projects/members) but lacks details on error handling or side effects. Overall, it is transparent for a simple update operation.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: action/params, usage context, and limitation. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 an update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the task, required inputs, and returned configuration. It does not cover permissions or error scenarios but is sufficient for a typical update operation.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required and optional parameters and explaining the intended use (adjusting permissions, etc.), enhancing understanding beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool updates a user group's properties, lists the relevant fields (permissions, assignments), and explicitly notes that it cannot modify projects/members, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_members_to_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?

It provides explicit when-to-use context ('adjust group permissions, modify access levels, or reorganize team structure') and a clear when-not-to-use with an alternative ('Cannot modify projects/members here - use dedicated tools').

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