placetel_update_groupUpdate a group by ID, modifying its name, member list, or description through the Placetel Web API.
Update a group. (PUT /groups/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| name | No | Body field name. | |
| member_ids | No | Body field member_ids. | |
| description | No | Body field description. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description omits behavior that matters for a PUT-style partial update: whether omitted body fields are cleared or left untouched, whether member_ids replaces or extends the current membership, and what permissions are required.
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?
Two short fragments with no filler and the resource is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. The endpoint notation is the only substantive content.
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?
A 5-parameter mutation with no output schema needs the description to explain update semantics, required identifiers vs optional fields, and the response shape. The definition supplies none of this, leaving only the verb and the route.
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 baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. The schema's own descriptions are boilerplate ('Body field name.'), so nothing clarifies whether name/member_ids/description are optional or how they are applied.
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 restates the title verbatim ('Update a group') and adds only the raw HTTP method/path, which is plumbing rather than purpose. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like placetel_create_group or placetel_get_group in terms of what a caller actually achieves.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling update-like operations. The agent must infer from the name alone that this modifies an existing group and that create/get/delete are the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.