update_ha_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an HA group.' without mentioning that it modifies existing settings, potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are applied immediately), or prerequisites (e.g., existing group). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short with a clear structure: a single purpose statement followed by an Args list. The main action is front-loaded. However, the prose is minimal, and the Args list could be integrated into a more natural explanation.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (context indicates true), return values are likely covered. However, the description omits important context such as error cases, idempotency, or any behavioral notes. For a tool updating HA groups, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args:' block provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'nodes: Node list with optional priority.', 'nofailback: Don't fail back.'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool name 'update_ha_group' clearly indicates its action, and the description 'Update an HA group.' confirms it updates an existing HA group. Among sibling tools like create_ha_group, delete_ha_group, get_ha_group, and list_ha_groups, this stands out as the update operation. Specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to update vs create or delete. It simply says 'Update an HA group.' which implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions.

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