Update Project Distribution Group

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description provides adequate context beyond the annotations.

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 concise at four sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral note, required parameters, and API endpoint. No redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema defined, but the description notes that the modified object is returned on success. Given the simplicity of the update operation and the thorough parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand input and output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description only restates the two required parameters (project_id, distribution_group_id) and does not add new semantic 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 begins with a clear statement of the action: 'Update a Distribution Group associated with the given Project.' It specifies the verb (Update), the resource (Distribution Group), and the project context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_project_distribution_group' and 'delete_project_distribution_group'.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to update an existing Directory records (only the supplied fields are changed).' It implies partial updating but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives beyond the implication of update vs. create/delete.

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