Update Group

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed, that it returns the modified object, and provides the API endpoint. This supplements the annotations adequately.

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: first states purpose, second explains partial update and return, third lists required parameters and API info. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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 an update operation, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and response. It could mention prerequisites like group existence or permissions, but overall it is sufficient given the rich schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description only names the three required parameters without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 updates an existing group for Document Markup records. It specifies that only supplied fields are changed, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings.

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 directs to use this tool for updating existing Document Markup records and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly indicate when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related operations like adding people to groups.

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