Modify a group

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those: the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data, and it requires explicit operator write opt-in plus confirm:true. There is no contradiction with the annotations. It stops short of describing partial vs full replacement semantics, so it is not a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: operation, endpoint, body fields, reference, and requirements appear in a logical order. Every sentence contributes important information, and the field list is scannable rather than padded.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: endpoint, required id, body fields, permissions, side effects, and a documentation link. The main gaps are that it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, and it does not describe the response shape, but the reference link mitigates these omissions.

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 schema's body parameter is mostly an opaque JSON blob with only id required, so the tool description adds real value by listing the relevant body fields (allowDuplicates, description, externalKey, etc.). The confirm parameter is already well documented in the schema, and the query parameter is explicitly noted as having no documented names. Type-level detail for the listed fields is left to the reference link, preventing a 5.

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 the exact operation ('Modify a group'), the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/groups), and enumerates the relevant body fields. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like xmatters_create_a_group and xmatters_delete_a_group because it requires an existing group id in the body and uses a modify verb.

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 important operational prerequisites ('Requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true') and a caution about side effects, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create/delete or another mutation tool. The intended use is implied by the name and the required id, rather than clearly contrasted with alternatives.

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