plan_update_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explicitly state that this tool is non-destructive (only plans, doesn't apply), nor what 'partial' means in terms of side effects or idempotency. The minimal phrasing leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is so terse that it borders on under-specification. It is appropriately sized for a one-liner but lacks the informational richness expected for a tool with three parameters.

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 presence of a nested, open-ended patch parameter and a suite of sibling tools, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format (despite an output schema, the payload semantics are unclear) or what constitutes a 'partial' update, leaving a substantial context gap.

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 was expected to compensate, but it provides no information about the required parameters (panel, group_id, patch). It doesn't clarify how 'patch' expresses a partial update or what format is expected, leaving the agent without essential semantic guidance.

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 'Plan a partial group update' clearly indicates a planning action for a group resource, with 'partial' distinguishing it from a full update. It identifies the specific resource (group) and the action (plan), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_create_group or plan_update_user.

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, such as plan_update_user or plan_create_group. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts beyond the name itself, offering no actionable usage direction.

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