Update group About text

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: that the edit requires admin rights, that images and videos on the page persist (bounding the destructive scope), and that the change is immediately public to all page visitors. It does not state whether the old text is recoverable or what the response looks like, which is the remaining gap.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the text is padded: the second sentence restates the first ('Replaces the description... as editing it on the About page does') and 'Admins only' appears twice within four sentences. It could be nearly half the length without losing information.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, this covers the essentials: permission requirement, mutation scope, and public visibility. The main omission is any statement about reversibility or whether a previous About text can be restored.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the plain-text/line-break behavior of 'about' and the URL-name format of 'group'. The description adds no syntax, length limits, or formatting constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: 'Replace the text on the group's About page.' An agent can distinguish this from update_post, update_group_link, or update_group_rule by resource alone. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 'Admins only' prerequisite is stated twice, which is useful gate information, and the equivalence to 'editing it on the About page' gives context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as update_group_link or update_group_rule, so usage must be inferred from the resource.

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