nex_browser_group_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare action: names must be unique and the ungrouped bucket cannot be changed. However, it does not disclose response/return behavior, error conditions for duplicate names or invalid groupId, or whether workspace activation is required.

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 sentences with no filler: the first sentence states the operation and scope, the second packs the critical constraints. Every clause earns its place and the action is front-loaded.

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?

This is adequate for a simple rename/reorder operation with a well-described schema, but it leaves gaps: no mention of return values or error behavior, no guidance on whether at least one of name/seq must be provided when groupId is given, and no explicit prerequisite about an active workspace beyond the phrase itself.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mainly echoes the schema's parameter descriptions (new unique name, new sort order, groupId 0 rejected) rather than adding new semantic meaning; it clarifies the ungrouped bucket but adds little beyond the schema.

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 action ('Rename or reorder') on a specific resource ('one custom window group'), with clear scope ('in the active NexBrowser workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nex_browser_group_create/delete/move_to_group without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: for renaming or reordering an existing custom window group. It also provides exclusions ('ungrouped bucket (groupId 0) cannot be changed') and a constraint ('names must stay unique'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when-not to use them.

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