update_access_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, reversibility, return values, or how the mutation affects existing data. The raw variable listing and truncated example offer no behavioral insight.

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 a disorganized dump of variable names and a cut-off example. It is not front-loaded or concise; it is cluttered and fails to provide a clean summary of what the tool does.

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 has 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the intended structure of 'input', the purpose of the multiple filters and orders, or what a successful response looks like. The agent is left with almost no actionable 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?

The schema has 100% coverage but only with generic type descriptions (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'). The description lists the variable names, which duplicates the schema, and provides an example that is truncated. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter or how they relate, leaving ambiguity around terms like 'filter', 'filter1', and 'filter2'.

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 only says 'Access Groups · mutation updateAccessGroup' which essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't explicitly state that this tool updates an access group or what that entails. There is no natural-language explanation of the operation, making it nearly a tautology.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_access_group or delete_access_group. The description gives no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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