update_placement_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It indicates this is a mutation tool ('Update'), but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about behavioral traits, parameter details beyond field names, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds limited value. It mentions 'name' and 'labels' as updatable fields, which helps interpret two of the three parameters, but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter's purpose or provide any format/constraint details. This partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 resource ('a placement group'), and specifies the updatable fields ('name, labels'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_placement_group' or 'delete_placement_group' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing placement group ID), compare with similar tools (like 'create_placement_group'), or indicate when not to use it.

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