pve_update_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update group configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing settings, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies system state.

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 concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'group configuration' entails, what changes are possible, or what to expect after execution. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (groupid and comment). Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add value here.

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 group configuration' clearly states the action (update) and resource (group configuration), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like pve_update_acl, pve_update_backup_job, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically is being updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), exclusions, or sibling tools like pve_create_group or pve_delete_group that might be relevant in different contexts.

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