acf_update_field_group

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits beyond the basic update action. For instance, the schema indicates that the 'fields' parameter replaces all existing fields, but this important behavioral aspect is not mentioned in the description. Since annotations are absent, the description should carry this burden but fails to do so.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is too under-specified to be valuable. True conciseness would efficiently convey essential details without fluff, but here the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness, making the description unhelpful.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the impact of updates, the behavior of replacing fields, or how location rules are applied. The agent lacks critical context for correct 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?

The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, despite a schema description coverage of only 50%. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents to infer parameter values from the schema alone, which is insufficient for complex parameters like 'fields' and 'location'.

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 an existing ACF field group' clearly specifies the verb (Update) and the resource (ACF field group). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like acf_create_field_group, acf_delete_field_group, and acf_list_field_groups, making the purpose unambiguous.

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, such as when to create a new group versus update an existing one. Also, prerequisites like requiring the field group key to exist are not mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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