postmd_update_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so reasonably well: it identifies the operation as an update, documents the ownership and API-key requirement, and explains that clearExpireDate removes the expiry date. It does not mention combined-field semantics or irreversibility, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a small update tool.

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 four short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by owner/permission requirements and the non-obvious clearExpireDate behavior. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 low-complexity update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call context: what the tool does, who may use it, what permission is required, and the special clear-expiry behavior. The main gap is the lack of explicit statement about whether the update fields can be combined or how conflicts between expireDate and clearExpireDate are resolved, but this is not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description partially compensates by mapping 'Rename' to the name parameter and 'change its expiry' to expireDate. However, groupId is left without explicit explanation, and the description does not clarify whether name, expireDate, and clearExpireDate can be used together or whether omitted fields remain unchanged. This is adequate but not complete.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Rename a group or change its expiry.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from create/delete/list group siblings and from document update tools. It also mentions the 'clearExpireDate' behavior, so the agent knows both primary update modes.

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 gives clear context by specifying 'Owner only' and 'Requires an API key with groups:write,' which helps the agent determine when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set makes the update-vs-create/delete distinction reasonably obvious.

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