update_group

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

The description merely states 'Updates an existing group' without disclosing behavioral traits such as mutation, replacement of user_ids, or required permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description should fill this gap but does 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., what fields can be updated) without losing conciseness.

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 mutates data and has no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context, such as success/failure behavior, side effects, or permissions. It is incomplete 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 100%, so each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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 'Updates an existing group' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_group (creates) and delete_group (deletes). It leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_user_to_group for adding a user without replacing all members). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the group needing to exist, or when updates are not appropriate.

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