hostgroup_update

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint are all false), so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Update' and 'Modifies properties' implying state change, but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites like authentication.

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 concise with three short sentences, no redundant information, and the first sentence immediately states the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks mention of preconditions (e.g., group must exist) or error conditions.

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 100% so parameters are already described. The description adds value by reinforcing that only the 'name' field can be changed and that partial updates are supported ('Only specify the fields you want to change').

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 tool updates an existing host group, specifying the verb 'Update' and resource 'host group', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hostgroup_create, hostgroup_delete, and hostgroup_get.

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 implies use when modifying an existing host group and emphasizes only specifying fields to change, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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