update_group_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'change', with no mention of side effects, permissions, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence. While efficient, it could afford slightly more detail without becoming verbose. No structural issues.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the tool's mutation nature, the description should provide more context about success indicators, error conditions, or expected behavior. It is too sparse for reliable agent invocation.

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 schema describes 2 of 3 parameters (groupJid, instanceName), but the 'description' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining expected format, length constraints, or behavior. With 67% schema coverage, the description should fill gaps but fails to do so.

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 'Change a group's description' effectively restates the tool's name, making it clear but providing little additional insight. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_group_subject or update_group_setting, which also modify group properties.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_group_setting or update_group_subject. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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