update_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose mutation of Officer control-plane config, that the feature is protected and disabled by default, and that invalid codes are rejected at validation. The phrase "protected" is left unexplained, and success/failure semantics beyond the output schema are not described.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutation itself and followed by the two hard constraints. Little waste, though the trailing "protected and disabled by default" clause is vague jargon that could be sharper.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key operational constraints (default-group protection, reserved code, disabled-by-default feature). Only the meaning of "protected" and post-call behavior remain thin.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter, including title replacement/clearing and the reserved '-' code. The description restates the title and '-' semantics rather than adding new meaning, so it sits at the 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 and resource ("Change an account group's code and title") and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_group, delete_group, or update_account, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion: the default group cannot be changed and its reserved '-' code is refused. That tells an agent when the call will fail, though it never names an alternative tool for the cases it excludes.

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