set_group_properties

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that 'sid' and 'gid' cannot be set, which is a valuable behavioral constraint not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like overwrite vs. merge semantics, side effects, or required permissions. It provides moderate additional transparency on top of annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and an important constraint. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with annotations present, the description is largely sufficient. It states the main operation and a key restriction. However, it does not mention return values or error behavior, which could be useful given no output schema. Despite this, the description covers the essential context needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds critical meaning by explicitly listing the properties that cannot be set ('sid' and 'gid'), which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent avoid invalid calls. The description does not elaborate on the format of 'aGroupData' beyond 'Object {property: value}', but given the schema already specifies it's an object, the added restriction is valuable.

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 tool's action: setting properties of a group, with the explicit restriction that 'sid' and 'gid' cannot be set. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_group_properties' (reading), 'add_group' (creation), and 'delete_group' (removal). The verb 'set' and resource 'group properties' are specific and 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist), or any conditions under which this tool should be avoided. While the restriction on 'sid' and 'gid' hints at constraints, there is no direct statement about usage context or comparisons with sibling tools.

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