usergroups_users_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates the user list, but lacks details on whether it replaces or appends, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is concise but could incorporate more information without becoming unwieldy.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and modifies data, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (even though an output schema exists, the description could hint at it) or under what circumstances it should be used. The description feels incomplete for a data-modifying 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema parameter names. It does not clarify the format of the 'users' parameter (e.g., comma-separated user IDs) or the purpose of 'include_count' and 'team_id'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (list of users for a User Group). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like usergroups_update (which likely updates group metadata) and usergroups_users_list (which lists users).

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. A simple one-liner does not help the agent decide between similar sibling tools.

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