update_knowledge_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an update (mutation) but does not mention side effects, permissions required, error handling, or what is returned (output schema exists but is not described). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral context.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, one guideline sentence, and a bullet list of parameters. No wasted words, and the most important information (verb, resource, partial update pattern) is front-loaded.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic update operation but lacks completeness. It does not mention what happens if group_id is invalid, whether the update returns the updated object, or any prerequisites. It meets the minimum but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: group_id as UUID, name as new name, description as new description. It also reinforces the partial update pattern by stating to provide only fields to change. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

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 updates a knowledge group, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_avatar or update_knowledge_document by focusing on knowledge groups, but does not explicitly differentiate from them. The verb 'update' and resource 'knowledge group' are clear.

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 only says 'Only provide the fields you want to change,' which is a usage hint for partial updates. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update versus delete and recreate, or when to use get_knowledge_group first.

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