patch-crm-v3-properties-objtype-groups-var_var

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the tool's action. It does not mention PATCH semantics, which fields are updatable, whether groupName can be changed, response format, or side effects. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 clear sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and a mutation operation. It is concise but lacks structure or elaboration; however, it is not as egregiously minimal as a single word.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool lacks contextual completeness. The schema fully documents parameters, but the description does not explain update behavior, required versus optional fields, or what the response contains, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this mutation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (label, groupName, objectType, displayOrder) providing meaningful descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the schema carries the load; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Update') and specific resource ('a property group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete/get/create groups or patch individual properties. However, it does not explicitly mention the object type or group name path parameters, though these are clear from the schema.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating/deleting a property group or updating a property. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when a PATCH is appropriate.

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