update_filter_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 disclosing mutation behavior, but it only says 'Update a filter group.' It fails to mention partial vs. full update, effects on existing data, required authorization, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent id), or return value. This is a significant gap 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 concise sentence with no filler words. It clearly conveys the core action and resource in four words, which is appropriately sized for a simple update tool. It is not overly verbose, and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite being a simple update, the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about prerequisites, side effects, or what fields are updatable. For a mutation tool, this level of under-specification leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly, especially regarding required permissions or return payload.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (id and filter_order), leaving only 'name' undocumented but self-explanatory. The description adds no semantic detail about parameters, but the schema already conveys much of the meaning, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. The baseline of 3 applies due to substantial schema coverage.

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 ('a filter group'), making it distinct from create, get, list, and delete siblings. However, it does not specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., name, filter order), so it lacks the specificity to fully distinguish from related updates like update_filter_group_visibility.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for existing filter groups, nor does it exclude cases like updating visibility. The description offers no context for selection among the many filter group and update tools in the sibling list.

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