passgage_update_branch_group

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only conveys that the tool performs an update (a mutation), but provides no information about response format, side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. This is minimal and does not go beyond the tool name.

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?

One concise sentence clearly communicates the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is highly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what fields 'data' can contain (especially since additionalProperties is true), what a successful update returns, or any prerequisites beyond 'existing', leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the parameters id and data already have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 an existing branch_group' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (branch_group), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_branch_group, get_branch_group, delete_branch_group, and update_branche.

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 of 'existing' implies you should only call this on a branch_group that already exists, and that creation would be a different tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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