kaiten_update_company_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, and it only restates that an update occurs. It does not state whether the update is partial, whether omitting name is meaningful, what permissions are required, or what response is returned.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is placed up front. It is efficient, though it is too thin to provide behavioral or usage context.

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 two-parameter CRUD tool with complete schema coverage, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to identify the target and the field to change. However, with no annotations or output schema and no statement of update semantics, an agent cannot anticipate side effects, return values, or whether other company-group fields exist.

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 the schema already explains 'New group name' and 'Group UID'; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that only the name property is updatable and that group_uid identifies the target.

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 uses a clear imperative verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('company group') and a domain qualifier. It distinguishes the operation from create/get/delete siblings for the same resource, though it does not enumerate which fields are affected or how this update differs from related updates beyond the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus kaiten_create_company_group, kaiten_delete_company_group, or the other update_* tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mutation counterpart for company groups; no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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