kaiten_update_document_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. 'Update' signals mutation, but the description does not state whether the update is partial or a full replacement, whether renames propagate to affected documents, what the response contains, or whether any side effects occur. This matches the gap seen in similar minimal mutation-tool descriptions.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it borders on under-specification since it essentially restates the tool name. It is concise without being empty, though it could have used the available space to add behavioral or usage detail.

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 is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and the schema is complete, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: no return-value expectations, no usage context, and no behavioral details like partial-update semantics. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful incompleteness.

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% — both parameters are self-documenting ('New group title', 'Document group UID'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline rule the schema carries the load, so a 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Kaiten document group'), clearly distinguishing it from the CRUD siblings (create/get/delete/list_document_group) by operation type. However, it adds nothing beyond what the name already conveys and does not differentiate it from the many other update_* tools in the sibling list, such as kaiten_update_document.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of whether a document group must exist first, no prerequisite about fetching the group via kaiten_get_document_group, and no contrast with kaiten_update_document or kaiten_create_document_group.

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