conduyt_update_ring_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two behaviors that matter most for a mutation call: the 428 precondition failure on memberIds replacement and the 409 concurrency guard. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared by a partial update, nor any permission requirement or response shape.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler: the field scope comes first, then the high-risk concurrency rule. Every clause carries actionable information an agent needs before calling.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary failure modes well. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics (what happens to unspecified fields) and what a successful response contains, both of which the agent could still get wrong.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the consequence of memberIds replacement and expectedUpdatedAt in terms of concrete HTTP outcomes (428/409), which the schema only hints at. Interpretation of partial-update semantics for the remaining optional fields is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a ring group') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, number, members, strategy, ring time, active), which cleanly separates it from conduyt_create_ring_group, conduyt_get_ring_group and conduyt_delete_ring_group. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives a clear conditional rule for the tricky parameter: expectedUpdatedAt is mandatory when replacing memberIds (428 otherwise) and optional-but-beneficial elsewhere (409 instead of silent overwrite). It points the agent to conduyt_get_ring_group as the source of that value. No when-not-to-use guidance is offered, keeping it short of a 5.

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