update_group

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the behavioral trait that the update targets an existing entity by ID. It does not disclose side effects like privilege replacement (which is covered in schema descriptions), but it does add some context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It says exactly what the tool does in the fewest possible words, earning its place without wasted content.

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?

The description is minimal, but combined with the output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, it is nearly sufficient. The lack of explicit guidance about what happens if optional fields are omitted is a minor gap, but annotations and schema fill most missing context, making the tool usable.

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 provides no parameter details, but the input schema has 100% coverage with rich descriptions (e.g., 'List of privileges (replaces existing)'). Per the baseline rule, this earns a 3 without needing explicit parameter info in the description.

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 'Update an existing pfSense user group by ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_group, delete_group, and search_groups by specifying an update to an existing entity, with the ID as the targeting mechanism.

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?

The word 'existing' implies this tool is for groups that already exist, and 'by ID' suggests you need a known group ID, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. The schema's group_id description refers to search_groups, but this is not part of the main description, providing only implied usage guidance.

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