cigchat_team_update_agent_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a required scope but does not clarify the nature of the update (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), potential side effects, whether the operation is idempotent, or return values. 'Update' implies mutation, but critical behavioral context is missing.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. It includes the key prerequisite (Manage Team scope) without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what specific group attributes can be updated, the meaning of the PUT method in this context, or expected outcomes. The tool's complexity demands more explanatory effort than this.

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 adds no parameter-level information beyond that already present in the schema. Schema coverage is 67% (4 of 6 properties have descriptions), and those descriptions are reasonably clear. Since the schema handles most semantics, the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable, though it doesn't reinforce or expand on any fields.

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 action ('update agent group') and provides the specific HTTP endpoint, making the resource and operation unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like cigchat_team_update_agent_group_users or cigchat_team_create_agent_group, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual note is the 'Manage Team' scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No mention of whether this is for updating core settings vs. membership, or relationships to create/delete/update-users operations.

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