update_user_group

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or require existing group existence, nor does it disclose any side effects beyond the generic 'updates'.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding value. It merely restates the tool name, making it more of a tautology than a useful description.

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, a required name field, and an output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, parameter purpose, or any conditional behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to correctly invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'skin', 'policy', 'comment', or 'new_name', leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond field names and types.

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 'Updates a user group.' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional detail on scope, fields, or behavior. It lacks any specific information that would help distinguish it from other update tools beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description is purely definitional and does not mention context such as the need to specify an existing group name or the availability of get_user_group/list_user_groups for verification.

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