dex_update_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if only some fields are provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by contributing essential information about the tool's function.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format. For a tool that modifies data, more context about its operation and results is needed for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'groupId', 'name', and 'emoji' as updatable fields, which maps to the three parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond their names (e.g., what format groupId expects, whether emoji supports Unicode, if name changes affect other references). The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 action ('Update') and target ('a group's name or emoji by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'dex_create_group' (creation) and 'dex_delete_group' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'dex_update_contact' or 'dex_update_tag'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group ID), when not to use it, or how it compares to similar update tools for contacts, tags, or custom fields. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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