Update HA group

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking.' This reinforces the destructiveHint=true annotation and provides actionable guidance. It does not cover additional behaviors like authorization needs or rate limits, but the warning is significant.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose and updatable fields, the second adds the high-risk warning. Every sentence is necessary and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, high risk, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter, nor does it describe return values or side effects. While the annotations help, the description could be more comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description only enumerates four parameters (nodes, failback, restricted, comment) without explaining their meaning or usage. It does not clarify the 'delete', 'confirm', or 'nofailback' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for the listed parameters.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'HA group', and it specifies the fields that can be updated (nodes, failback, restricted, comment). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ha_group and delete_ha_group.

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 includes a high-risk warning and instructs to ask the user for confirmation before invoking. This provides clear guidance on when to use (after user confirmation) but lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives, such as create_ha_group for initial setup.

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