User Group Mod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little more than flag a write. It does not say which fields are mutated, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any auth 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a seven-parameter mutation tool rather than optimally sized.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return values and params need not be restated. However, for a write tool with no annotations and many optional fields, the description omits what can be changed and any safety/permission context, leaving real 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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters (host, port, scheme, group, comment, profile, new_name). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('修改用户组' / modify user group) and marks it a write operation, so the agent knows the operation class. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many adjacent siblings such as user_group_add, user_group_del, or user_group_set_users.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. host/port/profile selection), and no mention of alternatives among the user_group_* siblings. The parenthetical '(写操作)' only labels the operation type, not the selection condition.

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