Edit Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing group's properties' without addressing error handling, whether unspecified fields are preserved or replaced, permission requirements, or return values. This is a significant omission for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by a prerequisite. It is concise, avoids redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description doesn't mention what the response looks like or confirm success/failure behavior. It covers the essential purpose and ID lookup but leaves out mutation semantics like partial vs. full update. For a simple group property update, this is a moderate gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already documents them adequately. The description adds value by pointing to get_groups for obtaining group_id, but it doesn't enrich the meaning of name, color, sharing, or team_ids beyond the schema's labels.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing group's properties', identifying the action (update) and resource (group). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_group, delete_group, and get_group by focusing on modification of an existing group. However, it doesn't explicitly list which properties are updatable beyond what the schema shows.

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 instruction 'Use get_groups to find group IDs first' provides a clear prerequisite and workflow context, implying the tool edits existing groups. It doesn't mention alternatives like add_contact_to_group for membership changes, but the given guidance is sufficient for the core use case.

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