update_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 only states that the tool updates a group and accepts an identifier. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether fields not specified are retained or reset), permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., if the group does not exist), or whether the update is partial or full. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the key identifier detail. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the structure is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a tool with eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not convey expected call patterns, handling of edge cases, or any update semantics beyond the basic action. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly other documentation to use it correctly, which the description fails to provide.

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 only 13% (group_id is described, but the other seven parameters are not). The description adds no extra meaning for these parameters—it only restates the group_id flexibility already present in the schema. It does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining what 'name', 'type', 'email', 'active', etc., mean or how they should be used. Essentially, the description provides no value beyond the schema.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing group'), and specifies that it accepts either sys_id or name. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_group, add_group_members, and list_groups. It is a specific verb+resource statement with no ambiguity.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use this to modify group properties; use add_group_members to manage membership.' There is no explicit or even implicit comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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