Update a user group

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the title. It does not disclose effects of omitting 'name', auth requirements, or whether existing group memberships are retained.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it loses clarity (e.g., 'team' vs 'user group'), which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to specify behavior when 'name' is omitted, what 'workspace_id' affects, or whether the operation is a partial update. Sibling tools like update_tag likely have similar gaps, but this description doesn't provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters 'name', 'group_id', and 'workspace_id' are already described. The description's 'Renames' implies 'name' is the new value, but adds no meaning 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 states the action ('Renames') and the target ('a team'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as changing a group's name. It distinguishes from sibling create/delete user group tools, though 'team' is slightly imprecise vs 'user 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives; the description implies it is for renaming an existing user group. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer create_user_group or other tools.

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