update_org_group_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it fails to explain whether memberIds replaces all members or just adds, what happens if members are invalid, or whether the update is atomic. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. Acceptable concisely but not well-organized.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., success status), but it does not. It also omits whether the operation is additive or replacement, leaving ambiguity for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (group ID and members to add). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance clarity.

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 'Update a group's members' clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from tools like 'update_org_group' (which updates group properties) and 'update_org_member_groups' (which updates a member's groups). However, it could be more specific about whether it adds or replaces members.

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 siblings like 'update_org_member_groups' or 'create_org_group'. The description lacks context on the appropriate scenario for updating group members versus other group operations.

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