vibemk_update_host_group

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the update is additive, whether missing fields are preserved, or whether the host group must exist. The description only states the action without behavioral detail.

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, using a single clear sentence. It conveys the essential purpose without any redundant or extraneous text.

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 simple update operation, the description plus schema covers the basic inputs and purpose. However, it lacks context about behavior such as whether the update merges properties or requires all fields, which could be relevant for correct invocation. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for an update operation.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Group name', 'Display alias'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Update host group') and the resource ('host group'), and the phrase 'Modify host group properties' conveys the general purpose. It distinguishes from create/delete operations by the action verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar update tools for other resource types.

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 like create_host_group or delete_host_group. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which to choose it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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