Update Group Subject

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

The description adds an important behavioral requirement ('Requires admin privileges') beyond what the annotations already state. Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns with this, adding auth context without contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by the key requirement. No redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly scannable and informative.

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 update operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and a critical prerequisite. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but these are not critical for this straightforward mutation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (subject and group_jid). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so a baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('name/subject of a WhatsApp group'), with a specific verb and object. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_group_description and update_group_picture by focusing solely on the group subject.

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 provides a key prerequisite (admin privileges) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_group_description. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage context is only implied by the name and sibling list.

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