edit_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists parameters without revealing side effects, error conditions, or whether changes are committed to a branch. The overwriting nature of 'новые' (new) values is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list with no extraneous text. Every line adds value, and the structured list is easy to scan, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The parameter documentation is thorough enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. The main gap is the absence of any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the group must exist) and relationship to sibling tools, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 provides a detailed meaning for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'Новая координата X', 'Новый цвет группы в HEX', 'Новое описание группы'), which the schema itself lacks (0% coverage). This gives an agent sufficient semantic understanding to correctly supply values.

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 action ('Изменить свойства группы таблиц' - change properties of a group of tables) with a specific resource. The verb 'Изменить' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_group and delete_group, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the function without referencing create_group for creation or delete_group for deletion.

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