group_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'edit group information' without mentioning permissions, side effects (e.g., whether fields not provided are reset), or any constraints. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Ideally, it should be slightly expanded to cover key aspects.

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 edits a group and has 4 parameters (1 required), the description should cover what each parameter does, any special behavior (e.g., null meaning no change), and return value expectations (no output schema). It fails to provide this context, making it inadequate for an edit tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (group_id, name, about, is_approval), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. No additional context is provided.

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 '编辑群组信息' (Edit group information) clearly states the action (edit) and the resource (group). It is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'group_create' or 'group_get_detail', though it does not elaborate on specific editable fields.

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 versus alternatives such as 'group_add_admin' or 'group_create'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description simply states the action without context.

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