update_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update' – it doesn't say whether partial updates are supported, whether all fields are overwritten, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair: the description adds minimal value but doesn't contradict anything.

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?

One short sentence with no waste. It's front-loaded and efficient. It could add a bit more context, but for what it is, it's concise and structured well.

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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), but that's not required. It could mention whether the update is partial or full replacement, which is a common ambiguity for update tools. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate – adequate but with a clear gap around update semantics.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing group' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (group), and the schema confirms group_id is the target. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_record or update_farm_task, but the resource name is specific enough that an agent can infer the target. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage: call this when you need to modify an existing group. It doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_group or delete_group. The context is clear from the resource name, but there's no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or when to prefer other tools. This is adequate but with gaps.

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