vibemk_update_contact_group

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that properties are modified, but does not mention whether partial updates are supported, whether members are replaced or appended, failure behavior for nonexistent groups, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise and free of unnecessary detail. The single sentence communicates the purpose efficiently, with no redundant content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the update behaves (e.g., whether all properties are replaced, whether the group must exist, or whether members are additive), leaving important context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. However, descriptions like 'Group name', 'Display alias', and 'Group members' are minimal and do not clarify the expected format of members or whether alias is optional in practice.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('contact group'), and the phrase 'Modify contact group properties' reinforces the intent. It is distinguishable from related sibling tools like create or delete contact group, though it does not elaborate on exact property scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_user_to_group, remove_user_from_group, or create_contact_group. The verb 'Update' implies existing groups, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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