update_user_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation is an update and lists updatable fields, but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, partial update behavior, reversibility, or return values. 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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the scope. This is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation, even though more detail would be useful.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (permissions, side effects, error handling), and return value expectations. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient context for an agent to safely and correctly invoke it.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning by identifying 'name' and 'description' as updatable fields, which partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions. However, it does not explain the semantics of these fields (e.g., what 'description' means in context) or any constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('user group'), with a parenthetical listing updatable fields ('name, description, etc.'). This is a clear verb+resource statement, though it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling update tools (e.g., update_membership, update_lightbox) and the 'etc.' is vague.

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, such as create_user_group or delete_user_group, nor any prerequisites like requiring an existing user group ID. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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