Update Sharing Group

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose that 'shared_with' is a replacement list, which could remove existing users, nor does it describe any side effects or permissions required. Given openWorldHint is true and destructiveHint is false, the description offers no clarification on impact, leaving the agent uninformed about potentially destructive behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward update action, though it omits details that could be included.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, one required, and a nested array, but no output schema. The one-sentence description does not explain the replacement semantics of 'shared_with' or what the update returns. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'access levels or shared users' vaguely summarizes the parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify the relationship between access_level, org_access_level, and shared_with, but the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 ('a sharing group'), and specifies the scope ('access levels or shared users'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'sharing_share_group' tool, which could cause ambiguity. Overall, the purpose is clear for the 'Update' verb in the sharing family.

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 like create, delete, or share group. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing group_id, or when to use it to modify access levels versus using a dedicated share function. This lack of usage context makes it hard for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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