update_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the admin-permission requirement and the set of mutated fields, but does not clarify what is destructive or how unspecified fields are treated.

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 compact sentence lists the mutable fields first and the admin requirement last, with no padding. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the field enumeration could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. The description plus schema cover most of the nine parameters, though it omits any note on leave-unchanged semantics for the optional null defaults.

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 coverage is 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a loose field-level mapping ('nom', 'description', 'qui peut écrire', 'messages éphémères', 'photo' → name/topic/announce/ephemeral/photo_path), which helps semantic alignment but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Modifie') on a specific resource ('un groupe') and enumerates the mutable properties (nom, description, permissions d'écriture/modification, approbation des membres, messages éphémères, photo). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_chat, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with update_chat or update_group_participants.

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?

It supplies a real precondition ('Il faut en être administrateur'), which tells the agent when the call is eligible. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over update_chat or update_group_participants, so the sibling-routing decision is left to inference.

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