Update group_chats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the soft-delete behavior, which is a key trait. However, it does not explain side effects like whether updating users replaces or adds members, or any permission requirements.

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 of 8 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise parenthetical list of updateable aspects. No superfluous information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level overview of what can be updated. It lacks details on required id format, parameter interactions, or return value. For a simple update tool, it is adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 50% with id and users having descriptions, but title and deleted lack schema descriptions. The description maps 'rename' to title, 'members' to users, and 'soft-delete' to deleted, adding contextual meaning beyond the schema. This partially compensates for the missing 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 description uses a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'group chat', then lists the specific aspects that can be updated: rename, members, soft-delete. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and list.

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 implies it is for modifying an existing group chat, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The usage is inferred from the tool name and sibling context.

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