updateGroup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update group' with no mention of side effects, permissions, partial vs. full update behavior, or response format. This is nearly zero transparency.

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 (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It simply repeats the tool name and does not earn its place by adding value.

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 the tool's complexity (nested bodyParams, multiple updatable fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what fields can be updated, how the update is performed, or what the result looks like, which is inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. The schema reveals two required params (pathParams, bodyParams) with nested fields, but the description offers no meaning or usage hints, leaving the agent to infer everything from raw 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?

The description 'Update group' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateGroup' with no additional detail. It names the verb and resource but does not distinguish this from sibling tools like createGroup, deleteGroup, or getGroup.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for selecting updateGroup over other group operations.

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