update_group

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the requirement that WRITE_ENABLED must be true, which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects or whether fields are merged or replaced.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and prerequisite. No wasted words; concise and well-structured.

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 with fully described schema and supporting annotations, the description is minimum viable. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any validation/error conditions, which is a clear gap in completeness.

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 covers both parameters (sys_id with 'System ID of the group' and fields with 'Key-value pairs to update') at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Update a group' – a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like create_group, get_group, add_user_to_group, and remove_user_from_group. The prerequisite is an extra detail, not confusion.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives; only mentions the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement. Does not note that it is for modifying existing groups as opposed to creating them or managing membership, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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