group_revise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '更新分组' (update group) implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just two characters ('更新分组'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While brevity is good, this lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool. It doesn't waste words, but it also fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient in terms of utility per character.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool updating groups), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the basic action, provide parameter details, describe outcomes, or differentiate from siblings. This is inadequate for a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects.

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 meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 3 parameters (id, name, remark) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only indicates types and requirements. The description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., id for identifying the group, name for the new name, remark for optional notes), leaving their semantics entirely undocumented.

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 '更新分组' (update group) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'group_revise' (group revise/update). While it indicates the action is updating a group, it doesn't specify what aspects of a group are updated or how this differs from other group-related tools like 'group_create' or 'group_remove'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'group_create', 'group_query', 'group_remove', and 'env_revise' (which might update environment groups), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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