update_group_participants

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses a side effect ('chat shows a system message naming each affected participant') and confirms reversibility, adding context about behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, and return format, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it does imply the return format ('JSON object describing the per-participant outcome').

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Add, remove, promote, or demote participants of a group'), the resource ('group'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_group_name or get_group_info by focusing on participant mutations.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating the prerequisite ('the paired user must be a group admin') and hinting at reversibility ('Reversible by calling again with the inverse action'), though it does not directly compare to alternative tools.

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