Update group

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain effects like moving groups via parent_id or that updates are partial.

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 short but somewhat redundant ('Update group. Updates an existing group.'). It is front-loaded and not bloated, but the first sentence merely repeats the title, wasting a small opportunity for more useful detail.

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 tool, the description is minimal but lacks important context such as the optional nature of name and parent_id, the semantic of parent_id moving a group, or any note about partial updates. It relies heavily on the schema and does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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 description does not mention any parameters, relying entirely on the input schema. Schema description coverage is 67%, which is moderate but not high enough to offset the lack of supplementary parameter guidance in the description.

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 group' and 'Updates an existing group,' identifying the action and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like createGroup and deleteGroup, though it adds little specific detail about what can be updated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createGroup or showGroup. It neither states prerequisites nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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