update_gateway_group

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with an update operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the effect of apply_immediately or whether changes persist without explicit apply.

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, direct sentence expresses the action without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an apply_immediately flag, the description is overly terse. It does not explain the update workflow, the need to apply changes, or the relationship to search_gateway_groups. The output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full update process.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, including the trigger enum and group_id source. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the schema carries the load; thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('existing gateway group') with identification by ID. It distinguishes this from sibling create/delete/search operations, though it does not enumerate the specific updatable fields, which are covered in the schema.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_gateway_group or update_gateway. The description does not mention prerequisites like obtaining group_id from search_gateway_groups or the apply_immediately workflow, leaving the agent without usage context.

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