update_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, making it less transparent for safe agent use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a group's name or move it in the hierarchy'). There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly and safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (groupId, name, parentId). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'name' and 'move it in the hierarchy' (hinting at parentId), but doesn't provide additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what the schema specifies.

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 resource ('group'), specifying what can be updated ('name or move it in the hierarchy'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_group' or 'delete_group' by focusing on modifications, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_group' or 'rename_workspace' for groups.

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 like 'move_group' or 'create_group'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing group ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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