update_requester_groupUpdates a Freshservice requester group's name, description, or rule-based conditions by ID to keep group details and membership rules current.
Update a requester group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| conditions | No | New rules (rule_based groups) | |
| description | No | New description | |
| requester_group_id | Yes | Requester group ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing to that: it does not say the update is partial, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or that conditions apply only to rule-based groups. No contradiction, but zero added value.
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 brevity is not efficiency but under-specification: a single truncated fragment that duplicates the title. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing of substance to front-load.
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 four parameters, partial-update nulls, an output schema, and a dense set of sibling group tools, the description should at minimum say which fields are optional and what class of group can be updated. None of that appears, leaving the definition thin for a mutation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the rule_based caveat on 'conditions' are already documented in the schema. The description provides no additional semantics, which lands at the baseline 3.
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 sentence 'Update a requester group' restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope, field, or resource detail. It conveys the verb (update) and resource (requester group) but does nothing to separate it from siblings like update_group, update_requester, or update_agent.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this handles renames, rule-based condition rewrites, or both, nor when to prefer delete_requester_group or create_requester_group instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.