update_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation and lists which fields change, but says nothing about required permissions, whether unmentioned fields are preserved, reversibility, or side effects from an enabled-state change.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and parameter detail are thin.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the absence of any parameter clarification or behavioral caveats leaves significant gaps.

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 gestures at every parameter (rename→new_name, comment, enabled) but never resolves the critical ambiguity between the required 'name' (target group) and 'new_name' (new value), nor their types.

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?

States a specific verb ('Rename' / 'change') and resource ('a group'), and enumerates the mutable attributes (name, comment, enabled state). This clearly distinguishes the mutation from its siblings add_group, remove_group and list_groups, though it never names them.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. group must already exist), and no mention of the alternative tools (add_group/remove_group) for other outcomes. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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