update_host_group_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a full or partial update, which fields are required beyond id, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

At two words it is technically brief but is under-specified rather than concise; it omits information an agent needs. Brevity here reflects a lack of content, not editorial discipline.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description supplies almost none of the context required to invoke it safely or correctly, and it leaves the sibling overlap unresolved.

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% across three parameters (id, name, isDefault), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not clarify the id format, what name is renamed to, or what setting isDefault has on existing groups.

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 verb (Update) and a resource (host group), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it gives no indication of what about the group is updatable and fails to differentiate from the near-identical sibling update_host_group, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative update_host_group, which appears to operate on the same resource. The agent must guess which of the two host-group update tools applies.

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