Update agent group

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only, open-world). The description adds a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond that: this is a partial/PATCH-style update where unspecified fields are preserved, which prevents accidental field wiping. It stops short of describing permission requirements or response behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core behavior front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, complete annotations, and fully described parameters, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is the absence of any note on required permissions or the relationship to requester-group siblings.

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%, with group_fields already enumerating the updatable fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the partial-update semantics of group_fields but adds no format, type, or nested-field detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (agent group), clearly distinguishing it from create_group/delete_group. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling update_requester_group, leaving that distinction to be inferred from the 'agent' qualifier.

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?

'Only the supplied fields change' implies the partial-update use case, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as update_requester_group or delete_group.

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