Update Group Description

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds the admin privilege requirement, which is useful auth context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects or return behavior. This is moderate value beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose and one for the prerequisite. Every word contributes, and there is no redundant or vague content.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description provides the essential purpose and a key precondition. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what happens on success or failure, nor any side effects (e.g., notifications to group members). It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 documents both parameters (group_jid and description) with complete descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for any missing schema information.

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 specific action ('Update the description') and resource ('WhatsApp group'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_group_subject and update_group_picture. The verb is precise and the scope 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?

The description provides clear context by stating it requires admin privileges, implying it should only be used by authorized users. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool compared to other group update tools, but the purpose is straightforward.

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