update_group

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

No annotations provided; description carries burden. It discloses editing and node management but does not specify whether it is destructive, idempotent, or requires permissions. Partial 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?

Concise paragraph followed by parameter list. Well-structured but repetitive of schema titles. No wasted words.

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?

Covers operation, parameters, and constraints. Output schema exists so return values not needed. Lacks behavioral details like merge vs replace for custom_data.

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%; description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in plain language, including formats like 'comma-separated list' and 'JSON string', and adding the constraint of at least one parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Edit an existing group's properties and manage nodes', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' and 'get_group_details'.

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?

Description implies use for editing groups but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The constraint 'At least one parameter must be provided' is helpful but not a full guideline.

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