snipeit_gen_groupsid_4Partially edit a Snipe-IT group by ID to update its name or permissions. Use this to make targeted changes without replacing the entire group record.
PATCH /groups/{id}: Partially edit a group. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation groupsid-4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID | |
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no context beyond that — it never notes that the edit is destructive, what fields could be overwritten, or that the confirm parameter gates the write, all of which would be valuable for a 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?
It is short and front-loaded, but wastes space restating 'PATCH /groups/{id}' which is already in the title, and includes a boilerplate 'Generated from...' clause that carries no value for the agent.
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 destructive mutation with a nested undocumented body and a confirm write-gate, and with no output schema, the description does not convey what changes, required permissions, or confirm semantics. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 67%; the id and confirm parameters are described in-schema, but the nested body object (name, permissions) has no field descriptions. The description adds zero parameter meaning — it never explains the body fields or the confirm write-gate, so it fails to compensate for the gap.
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 states a specific verb ('partially edit') and resource ('a group'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it offers nothing to distinguish this from the several other groups-related siblings (gen_groupsid, _1, _2, _3) beyond the redundant endpoint restatement, so an agent cannot tell which group mutation to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this partial edit versus a full update (PUT) sibling, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. 'Partially edit' is the only weak signal, and the alternatives are left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.