yougile_update_group_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds 'soft-delete' context, which aligns with the destructive hint, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether updates are reversible or if title/users are replaced atomically.

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 single sentence that is clear and free of filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key updateable fields efficiently.

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 simple update operation, 4 parameters, and complete schema descriptions, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks explicit return value info, but no output schema exists and the semantics are obvious for an update operation.

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 all parameters (id, title, users, deleted) are already documented. The description merely lists parameter names without adding semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.

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 a group chat (title, users, or soft-delete)' names a specific verb and resource, and clearly lists the updatable aspects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, or list group chats by focusing on update operation.

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 use when modifying an existing group chat, which is clear from the verb 'update'. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is straightforward and no competing update tool for group chats exists among siblings.

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