update_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior — PATCH semantics with omitted fields unchanged, and that the updated group object is returned — but omits permissions, error/conflict behavior on duplicate names, and any side effects on group membership.

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?

Three tight clauses with zero padding; the mutability and return behavior are front-loaded. The only blemish is the inaccurate 'display_name' label, which slightly undercuts otherwise efficient structure.

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?

With no output schema the description helpfully states the return value, and it covers the patch semantic, but with no annotations and two sibling update paths it leaves the safety profile, permissions, and sibling differentiation unaddressed for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the nested name/description fields are documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the PATCH/omitted-fields semantic beyond the schema, but it also names the field 'display_name' while the schema uses 'name', a minor mismatch that could confuse the agent.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (update a group) and names the mutable attributes, so the agent knows what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling scim_update_group, which also updates groups, leaving the reader to guess which endpoint applies.

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 (e.g. required permissions or name-uniqueness constraints), and crucially no routing against the near-identical scim_update_group or update_user siblings. The reader is left to infer usage entirely.

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