update_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates settings but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description mentions parameters can be left blank to keep current values, which is useful context, but overall behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context, but overall it's efficient without being terse.

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 a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well by explaining all parameters. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavioral constraints that would be important for a tool that modifies group settings. The parameter explanations partially compensate for other 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate - and it does excellently. It provides clear semantics for all 6 parameters: identifies 'group_id' as the required identifier, explains that name/description/image_url can be left blank to keep current values, and clarifies that share and office_mode are boolean toggles. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose as 'Update a group's settings' which is a specific verb (update) and resource (group settings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'destroy_group' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_membership' or 'update_user' which also modify group-related entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing group_id), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new groups), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_group' for checking current settings or 'update_membership' for different update types. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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