Update Site_group

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds 'PATCH semantics' which reinforces idempotency, but does not elaborate on any side effects or additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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: two sentences plus a return line. It front-loads the key behavior ('PATCH semantics') and keeps every sentence essential. No redundant or wasted text.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on the update semantics and response format. However, it lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., slug pattern, parent options) and custom_fields validation, leaving gaps for the agent to infer from the schema.

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 50% (only id and response_format have descriptions). The description does not provide additional meaning for the undocumented parameters (name, slug, tags, parent, description, custom_fields). It only says to include the fields to change, which is a general guideline, not specific parameter semantics.

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 'Update an existing site_group' with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'site_group' are explicit, and the tool is distinguished from sibling tools like get, create, and delete by the update action.

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?

The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (partial updates). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context of siblings implies differentiation.

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