Update an account group's name, description, color, and default status, or replace its full list of connections in one call.
Update an account group's name, description, color, default flag, or replace its full connection list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID | |
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| isDefault | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| connectionIds | No | REPLACES the group's connections when provided |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description corroborates destructiveness by saying the connection list is replaced wholesale. It adds nothing about partial-update behavior for omitted fields, permission requirements, or consequences of an invalid connectionIds array — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the affected fields. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.
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 six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what can be changed but not how the call behaves: whether omitted fields are left untouched, what an empty connectionIds list does, or what failure modes exist. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.
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 only 33% (name, color, isDefault, description carry no schema descriptions), so the description's enumeration of those fields genuinely compensates. It also reinforces that connectionIds is a full replacement rather than an append, though the schema already states REPLACES, and the required id parameter is left unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb (update) and resource (account group) and enumerates the editable fields, so the agent knows exactly what can change. It hints at replacement semantics for connections but never names the closely related siblings add_connections_to_group or remove_connections_from_group, so the differentiation is only partial.
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?
Usage is implied by the field list and the phrase 'replace its full connection list,' which signals when to prefer this over incremental add/remove tools. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the agent must infer the alternative from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.