Update client group

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

No annotations provided; the description mentions 'partial update via PATCH' which signals mutation but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or field behavior (e.g., what happens to unset fields). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Essential information is front-loaded: action (update), target (existing client group), method (PATCH), and guidance (only include changed fields).

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?

With 9 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the update semantics but doesn't explain required vs. optional, enumeration meanings, or how the partial update interacts with nested fields. Additional detail would be beneficial.

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 only 11% (only clientGroupKey has a description). The description says 'only include fields you want to change,' adding context that unspecified fields remain unchanged. However, it does not elaborate on the purpose or restrictions of individual fields like RestrictionLevel or EntityDescription.

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 updates fields on an existing client group via PATCH, and 'partial update' distinguishes it from full updates or creation. Among siblings like get_client_group and create_client_group, this is well-differentiated.

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 says 'Only include the fields you want to change,' which implies selective update and helps with usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. create_client_group (if the group doesn't exist) or list then update.

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