group_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that an existing group is updated, which implies mutation and existence, but it does not explain error behavior for a missing group, whether it is a partial or full update, permission requirements, or what the tool returns after success.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant phrases, and it is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it borders on merely restating the tool name, slightly reducing its structural value.

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?

This is a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, and the description provides only the bare action. It does not help the agent decide between this and group_create, does not indicate which fields are updatable, and does not explain what happens after an update, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for group_id, group_name, and remark, so the description does not need to add much. Since the description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'group', and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from the sibling tool group_create. However, it does not mention what aspects of the group can be updated or any scope limits, so it stops short of a fully rich purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of group_create, group_list, or other group operations. It does not state that the group must already exist, how this relates to group_create, or any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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