update_custom_field_field_group

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Idempotent' and 'Modifies an existing record in place,' which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or effects on related data.

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 concise with two lines and a clear emoji indicator. It avoids redundancy but could be more front-loaded with key information. The repetition of the title is a minor inefficiency.

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 complexity of nested parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not explain what the 'record' is (field group membership), the effect of the operation, or error conditions. The endpoint path is mentioned but not explained.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema descriptions. The phrase 'Group Members' hints at the purpose of the body fields but does not clarify parameter roles or relationships.

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 'Update Custom Field Field Group' and 'Modifies an existing record in place,' which, combined with sibling names (add_custom_field_to_field_group, delete_custom_field_field_group), clearly indicates an update operation on a field group member. However, it could be more specific about the resource being updated (membership) rather than the field group itself.

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 the sibling add or delete tools. It lacks context about prerequisites or conditions that would warrant an update instead of add/delete.

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