update_groups_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. No mention of requirements or limitations.

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 at three words, which is efficient but comes at the cost of necessary detail. It is front-loaded, but the brevity leaves critical information missing. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is not achieved.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain the resource 'Group Preferences', the parameters' roles, or the tool's behavior. The agent cannot determine how to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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 provides no explanation of the three parameters (privateGroup, accept-language, showAnnouncements). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must rely solely on the schema names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'accept-language'). The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Group Preferences', which identifies the tool's action and target. It is more specific than generic 'update' tools and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_admin_groups_by_item or update_groups_labels_by_item, though it could be more precise about which group preferences are affected.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool is for updating preferences for the current user's group or a specific group, nor does it compare to similar update tools for groups.

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