update_group

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a rename (mutation), but lacks details on effects (e.g., impact on group membership, uniqueness constraints, or authentication). Adequate for a simple action.

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?

Single sentence of 10 words, no redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core action and 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 simplicity of the tool (rename a group), the description is complete enough. An output schema exists (presumably returning the updated group), so return values need not be detailed. Could mention existence requirement or uniqueness, but not essential.

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%, but the parameter names (group_id, group_name) are self-explanatory. The description reinforces their roles ('by group_id to group_name') without adding new semantics or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Rename a contact group' and specifies the parameters 'by group_id to group_name'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_group (adding) and delete_group (deleting) by focusing on renaming.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resolve_group_name for name lookup, add_group for creating). The description implies renaming, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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