updateGroup

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, conveying it's a write operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or replace the entire group, what happens to omitted fields, or any authorization requirements. For a mutation tool with minimal annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 terse but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It duplicates the tool name and provides no additional structured information. An appropriately concise description should convey core purpose and behavior in a few sentences without redundancy.

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?

The tool has nested objects, two parameters, and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to call it correctly. It omits which fields can be updated, the meaning of format, how groupId is used, and any behavioral expectations. This is insufficient for a resource of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description 'Update group' provides zero information about parameters. The schema itself lacks descriptions for properties like groupId, format, and the group object's fields. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess from property names.

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 'Update group' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (group), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createGroup, deleteGroup, and getGroup. However, it is terse and does not add specifics about what aspects of a group can be updated, relying on the schema for details.

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 alternatives (e.g., createGroup, addUserToGroup). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the group must already exist, or any exclusions. Agents are left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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