Update an existing Zendesk group's name or description by providing the group ID and new values.
Update an existing group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID to update | |
| name | No | Updated group name | |
| description | No | Updated group description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as reversibility, required permissions, or effects on related data. It is neutral but uninformative.
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 extremely brief, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is a single clause with no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description should at least mention typical use cases or outcomes. It does not explain what happens on success, error handling, or any prerequisites. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but the description is too sparse for an agent to fully assess invocation context.
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 all three parameters (id, name, description) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb (Update) and resource (group), distinguishing it from create/delete/get group tools by the 'existing' qualifier. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity about what can be updated or any scope constraints.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies the purpose, but the description does not explicitly mention that this should be used for modifying existing groups rather than creating new ones, nor does it reference sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.