Update a group’s permissions

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the wholesale-replacement behavior and the destructive consequence that omitting a rule deletes it. It also warns that this call decides who can read and edit the wiki, which is critical behavioral context for a permissions-changing operation.

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 three purposeful sentences, front-loading the most important wholesale-replacement warning before giving the workflow and safety rationale. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 destructive semantics, confirmation-token flow, and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: full replacement behavior, pre-read with get_group, and the need for a confirmation token. The schema handles remaining parameter details, so nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is high at 83%, so many parameter details are already in the input schema. The description adds important semantic context not in the schema: permissions and page_rules must be sent as the complete set, and omitted rules are deleted. This elevates it slightly above the high-coverage baseline.

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 verb ('Replaces') and resource ('a group’s name, permissions and page rules'), and explicitly contrasts itself with a partial update, making its scope unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from related group tools like get_group and create_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 gives explicit, actionable workflow guidance: read the group with get_group first, send back the full set with changes applied, and expect to provide a confirmation token. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, and highlights the consequence of omitting rules.

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