updateGroup

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

No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral information. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether changing user IDs affects memberships, or if the update is immediate or requires confirmation. This is a critical 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 extremely concise (three words), which is front-loaded but insufficiently informative. While there is no fluff, the brevity reduces usefulness. A more balanced size would improve it.

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 output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., partial update vs. replace), return value, or error scenarios. The agent is left without essential context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with standard field names (id, name, userIds). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3, and no value added.

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 'Update a group' clearly states the action and resource, and the tool name updateGroup reinforces it. However, it does not differentiate from other update tools (e.g., updatePerson) beyond the resource name, which is already clear from the name. It lacks detail on what aspects are updatable.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like createGroup or deleteGroup, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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