Update mediation group

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context: it's a patch operation, updateMask is required, repeated fields are fully replaced, and it's 'allowlisted'. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences without redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose immediately. Every part adds value: method, updateMask requirement, replacement behavior, and reference to docs for mask paths.

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 tool has 5 parameters, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete. It explains key behavioral aspects (updateMask, repeated fields) but omits return value info (no output schema) and prerequisites, though these are partially covered by schema and context.

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 80%, providing decent baseline. The description adds value by explaining updateMask behavior (required, selects fields, repeated fields replaced) beyond the schema's example. This helps the agent understand the parameter semantics.

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 tool updates a mediation group, specifies it uses v1beta patch, and distinguishes from create_mediation_group sibling. The verb 'update' and resource 'mediation group' are explicit.

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 implies usage for updating mediation groups but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like create_mediation_group. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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