update_group

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, but does not elaborate on update behavior (partial vs full replacement) or error handling. Additional context is limited.

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 with a single sentence that contains the essential purpose and a key constraint. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool without an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and a requirement. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how updates merge with existing data, leaving some gaps in context.

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% for both parameters. The description's 'Key-value pairs to update' for fields is redundant with the schema. No new parameter-level meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 action ('Update a group') and the specific resource. It also mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which helps differentiate from read-only or creation tools like get_group or create_group.

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 implies usage context by stating a required setting, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., add_user_to_group) or specify when to avoid using this tool. Guidance is minimal.

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