update_user_group

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it replaces only the fields sent, is idempotent, has server-side auth injection, is throttled and retried on 429/5xx, and returns HTTP status plus JSON body with specific error mappings for 401/403/404/422. This goes far beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear operational mental model.

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 well-organized into labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and every sentence carries actionable information. The front-line declaration of WRITE/PUT and the concise update statement make the tool's purpose immediately clear. No filler or repetition.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: auth requirements, rate limiting and retry behavior, response format, error semantics, idempotency, the body requirement, and when to route to the create tool instead. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit 'Returns' section.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial nuance: the schema marks `body` optional, but the endpoint actually expects a body, and the whole payload should be forwarded verbatim into the single `body` argument. This is valuable practical guidance that prevents invocation failures.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Updates a user group'), states the HTTP method and path (PUT /v2/user_groups/{id}), and clarifies it modifies an existing record. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user_group, deletes_user_group, and get_user_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 'Use when' section explicitly says to use this only when the user asked to change an existing record, tells the model to read the record first to avoid overwriting unintended fields, and says to use the create tool if the record does not exist. It also names related sibling tools, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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