update_group

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior — that Miro assigns a new group id on update, invalidating the old one — which is valuable. However it omits permissions requirements, what happens to items removed from the group, and failure behavior for the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation's core semantic, with no filler. The trailing newline is harmless; nothing needs to be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the id-change note is a good addition. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, missing details like permissions, treatment of previously grouped items, and error conditions leave the agent under-informed.

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 0% and all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies item_ids ('new set of items') and says nothing about board_id or group_id, nor about whether item_ids replaces or appends.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace a group's membership entirely') and makes the replace-not-merge semantics explicit, which distinguishes it from create_group and list_groups. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary against create_group/ungroup.

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 word 'Replace ... entirely' implies when the tool is appropriate (full replacement rather than incremental edits), but no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or alternative is given. Alternatives such as create_group or ungroup are never mentioned.

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