updateTagGroup

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

Description adds 'Writes live data', 'Fields omitted are untouched', and return format beyond annotations. Annotations indicate idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, and readOnlyHint false, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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 uses a clear structure with sections for Use when, Required, See also, and Returns. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenario, required parameter, and return format. It lacks error handling or permission requirements, but given the sibling tools and no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 only 33% (only _clear_fields has description). The main description identifies id as required and mentions omitted fields, but does not explain the group_tag_name parameter or the _clear_fields usage. With low schema coverage, more description is needed to compensate.

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 tag group by ID, with a specific use case (renaming a tag group). It distinguishes from sibling tools createTagGroup and deleteTagGroup, providing clarity on when to use this tool.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when: renaming a tag group' and lists required parameter id. See also section provides alternatives. However, it does not compare with updateTag (another sibling tool) or provide exclusion criteria.

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