Update Fhrp_group

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description clarifies PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), which adds useful transparency and aligns with annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences plus a returns section. Front-loaded with purpose. Could add a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given 11 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects, the description lacks context on custom_fields, enums, prerequisites (e.g., object existence), and expected behavior for optional fields. Incomplete for 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 low (36%). The description only mentions id and response_format, leaving most parameters (e.g., name, tags, auth_key, custom_fields) unexplained. Does not compensate for schema 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?

Clearly states the tool updates an existing fhrp_group using PATCH semantics. Verb and resource are explicit, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete.

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?

Provides basic guidance on supplying id and only changed fields, and response format options. However, no explicit when-to-use or comparison with alternatives such as create or delete is given.

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