update_contact_group

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden but provides essentially none. It does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible; only the '(Holded API v2)' tag adds any context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so brief that brevity shades into under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and no sibling routing, the description should at minimum cover partial-update semantics and the effect of omitting 'name'. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the result of a call.

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%, with both 'name' and 'groupId' documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as whether 'name' is optional and what happens when it is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing contact group'), making the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from create_contact_group, get_contact_group and delete_contact_group by name. It does not explicitly point at those siblings, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling CRUD operations, no prerequisites, and no note that the group must already exist beyond the word 'existing'. The agent must infer all usage context 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.