update_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false (modifies data) and idempotentHint: true (repeated calls safe). The description's 'Update' is consistent but adds no new behavioral details (e.g., no mention of side effects, auth needs, or return values).

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, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by including parameter hints or separating purpose from usage.

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 output schema), and annotations provide safety context. The description is minimally adequate but could hint at return values or mention that it supports partial updates (since 'name' is optional).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'Update constituent group details'. It fails to explain that 'id' identifies the group and 'name' is the field to update. The agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'constituent group details', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_group_membership' or 'create_group', which handle related but distinct resources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating group membership vs. deleting a group). The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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