pmg_who_group_update

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

No annotations provided, so description handles transparency. Discloses mutation risk level (MEDIUM), dry-run behavior, and that only non-None fields are sent. Does not detail permissions or error handling, but sufficiently covers key behavioral traits for a medium-risk update.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with risk label and dry-run note. Every sentence serves a purpose: tool scope, sibling differentiation, partial update behavior, and execution flow. No redundant information.

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 an output schema exists (no need to detail return), the description covers purpose, usage, partial update, dry-run, and sibling distinction. It is complete for the update operation on a group config, addressing all necessary aspects.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying the partial update pattern: 'Only non-None fields are sent, others keep their current value.' This explains how nullable parameters work, exceeding schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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?

Description states 'update a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group config' and 'Renames or reconfigures the group itself', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools pmg_who_object_add/update/delete for match objects, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states dry-run by default and confirm=True for execution, guiding usage. Mentions alternative tools for match objects. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond object modification, which is clear from context, so a slight deduction.

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