Edit group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not responsible for basic safety signaling. It adds useful behavioral context: partial update semantics, permission constraints for owner/editors and private groups, and a caution about member_notify.

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 compact and front-loads the core action. Some phrasing is terse or cryptic, such as 'by the rules of its edit page', but there is little wasted text.

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?

This is a destructive 12-parameter mutation with no output schema and low schema description coverage. The description covers partial-update behavior and some permissions, but leaves many parameters and return behavior unaddressed.

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 only 42% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate for undocumented fields. It clarifies member_notify and permission-related constraints, but it does not explain most parameters such as name, sort, genre, permalink, description, group_id, or private boolean semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Changes a group') and clarifies that this is a partial update because 'only the fields given change'. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as create_group or delete_group, but the intended operation is still clear.

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 important context: owner/editor permissions, a restriction for private groups, and a caution to enable member_notify only when requested. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_group or delete_group.

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